Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07607/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07607-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMI AMIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 06-7483 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

CONSOLIDATE; ORDER RELATING

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al., CASES

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is the motion of defendants City of Redwood City, Victor Artiga, and

David Cirina to consolidate the above-entitled action with Amin v. City of Redwood City, 

C-06-7607 SBA. The Redwood City defendants have also filed a motion seeking leave to

file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s previous order finding the two cases not

related within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 3-12.

Based on the arguments made by the Redwood City defendants and by the plaintiffs

in the motion to consolidate, the court has sua sponte determined to reconsider its decision

not to relate the two cases. Accordingly, the court finds that the two cases – although

separate – are related and should both be assigned to the undersigned judge. As with any

related cases, the court anticipates that the parties will coordinate pretrial discovery and

other matters to the extent possible.

The motion to consolidate is DENIED. However, while plaintiffs argued persuasively 

Case 4:06-cv-07607-PJH Document 17 Filed 04/16/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

regarding the potential for prejudice if the cases are tried together, the court may be willing

to again consider whether the cases should be tried in a consolidated fashion after a

decision on any motions for summary judgment filed in the two cases. 

The date for the hearing on the motion to consolidate, and the hearing on the motion

for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, previously set for April 18, 2007, is VACATED.

The date for the initial case management conference, previously set for May 23,

2007, is also VACATED. A new case management conference date will be scheduled for

both cases after the court has decided the motion to dismiss filed by the County of San

Mateo defendants in this action, the hearing on which has been noticed for May 23, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07607-PJH Document 17 Filed 04/16/07 Page 2 of 2