Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00069/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00069-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MELANIE CASEY, CASE NO. CIV S-07-0069 FCD GGH

CASE NO. CIV S-07-0524 FCD GGH

Plaintiff,

CASE CONSOLIDATION ORDER

v.

ALAN EDWARD KENNEDY,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Melanie Casey’s

(“Casey”) motion to consolidate her personal injury action

against defendant Alan Edward Kennedy (“Kennedy”) with her

adversary action against the same defendant to have damages from

her personal injury action declared nondischargeable under the

United States Bankruptcy Code. Defendant does not oppose the

motion. 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00069-FCD-GGH Document 33 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1 All further references to “Rule” are to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

 Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure provides:

When actions involving a common question of law or fact

are pending before the court, it may order a joint

hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in

the action; it may order all the actions consolidated;

and it may make such orders concerning proceedings

therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or

delay.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).1

 Rule 42 confers broad power on the

district court to consolidate cases for trial to facilitate the

administration of justice at the request of a party or on its own

initiative. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th

Cir. 1987); Ellerman Lines, Ltd. v. Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores,

Inc., 339 F.2d 673, 675 (3d Cir. 1964). To determine whether

consolidation is appropriate, the court weighs the interests of

judicial convenience against the potential for inconvenience,

delay, or expense caused by consolidation. Huene v. U.S., 743

F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff moves for consolidation on the grounds that both

of her cases are based upon the same factual allegations and many

of the same legal issues. Both cases are also brought by the

same single plaintiff against the same single defendant. 

Moreover, there is no evidence of potential inconvenience, delay,

expense, or prejudice to either party as a result of

consolidation. As such, the court finds that consolidation of

the two cases will facilitate the administration of justice and

serve the interest of judicial economy.

/////

///// 

Case 2:07-cv-00069-FCD-GGH Document 33 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for consolidation is GRANTED

and the court makes the following orders: 

1. The actions denominated “CIV S-07-0069 FCD GGH” and

“CIV S-07-0524 FCD GGH,” are hereby CONSOLIDATED under

the designation “CIV S-07-0069 FCD GGH.” The parties

shall NOT file any documents under “CIV S-07-0524 FCD

GGH.” 

2. Any dates currently set in these consolidated cases are

hereby VACATED. 

3. Plaintiff shall file a consolidated complaint using

only the designation “CIV S-07-0069 FCD GGH” on or

before December 21, 2007. Defendant shall file a

responsive pleading within thirty (30) days after being

served with the amended complaint. 

4. A status (pretrial scheduling) conference is set for 

February 8, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall file

a joint status report on or before January 25, 2008.

5. The clerk’s office is directed to close the file in 

“CIV S-07-0524 FCD GGH.” 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2007

Case 2:07-cv-00069-FCD-GGH Document 33 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 3