Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01803/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01803-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1251 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)

---

1

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN T. KELLY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF POWAY, a municipal 

corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-2615 JLS (AHG) 

Case No.: 19-CV-1803 JLS (AHG)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING JOINT 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; AND 

(2) STAYING RELATED CASE

(18-CV-2615: ECF No. 38)

(19-CV-1803: ECF No. 7)

Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motions to Consolidate Cases. 

Plaintiff Kevin T. Kelly has filed two complaints against Defendant City of Poway. 

Plaintiff filed the first lawsuit, Kevin T. Kelly v. City of Poway, Case No. 3:18-cv-2615 JLS

(AHG) on November 5, 2018. Mot. at 2. On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second 

action, Kevin T. Kelly v. City of Poway, Case No. 3:19-cv-1803 BAS (BGS). On September 

23, 2019, the cases were deemed related and the second action was transferred to this Court. 

Id. The present Motion followed after Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the second

action. Id. After reviewing the Parties’ contentions and the law, the Court finds 

consolidation is appropriate and GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motions.

/// 

Case 3:19-cv-01803-JLS-DEB Document 8 Filed 01/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) provides that “[i]f actions before the court 

involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.” This 

rule affords courts “broad discretion” to consolidate cases pending in the same district, 

either upon motion by a party or sua sponte. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 

(9th Cir. 1987). “To determine whether to consolidate, a court weighs the interest of 

judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice caused by 

consolidation.” In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers Mktg. & Sales Practices 

Litig., 282 F.R.D. 486, 490 (C.D. Cal. 2012).

Here, the Court finds the factors weigh in favor of consolidation. The parties and 

legal issues in the two actions are identical, thus consolidation will serve the interests of 

judicial convenience. Further, consolidation will alleviate any concern for inconsistent 

rulings in the cases. Finally, the Court finds there is no prejudice, as shown by the fact that

the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Joint 

Motions and consolidates Kevin T. Kelly v. City of Poway, Case No. 3:18-CV-2615 JLS

(AHG) with Kevin T. Kelly v. City of Poway, Case No. 3:19-CV-1803 JLS (AHG). As 

stipulated by the Parties, all further pleadings SHALL BE FILED in the original action, 

Case No. 3:18-CV-2615 JLS (AHG). The Court STAYS Case No. 3:19-CV-1803 JLS

(AHG). The Court will rule on the pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) and Motion 

to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 30) filed in the original action in a separate Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01803-JLS-DEB Document 8 Filed 01/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2