Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02716/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02716-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Medical Malpractice

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAURA KAVALAUSKAS, as Executor 

and Trustee of the Lewis W. Muir 

Revocable Trust; LAURA 

KAVALAUSKAS; LOREN D. MUIR; 

HALLIE CORDES; and LEWIS B. 

MUIR, as Successor-in-Interest of 

Decedent LEWIS W. MUIR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.C. DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER; 

ELIZABETH DAVID, M.D.; PAUL 

PERRY, M.D.; MEGAN DALY, M.D., 

Defendants. ______________________________ 

LAURA KAVALAUSKAS, as Executor 

and Trustee of the Lewis W. Muir 

Revocable Trust; LAURA 

KAVALAUSKAS; LOREN D. MUIR; 

HALLIE CORDES; and LEWIS B. 

MUIR, as Successor-in-Interest of 

Decedent LEWIS W. MUIR 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-02716-MCE-CKD 

 

ORDER CONSOLIDATING RELATED 

CASES 

No. 2:15-cv-01655-MCE-CKD 

Case 2:14-cv-02716-MCE-CKD Document 36 Filed 10/21/16 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 

2

By Order dated November 11, 2015, these cases were deemed related in 

accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 123(a). After reviewing Objections to the 

Pretrial Scheduling Order filed on behalf of Defendants The Regents of the University of 

California (sued herein as U.C. Davis Medical Center) in Case No. 2:14-cv-02716-MCECKD, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on October 3, 2016 as to why that case 

should not be consolidated with Case No. 15-cv-01655-MCE-CKD. According to 

counsel for the Regents, because both cases arise out of the same facts and 

circumstances, establishing different Scheduling Orders would not be conducive to 

judicial economy. The Court’s October 3, 2016 advised the parties that in the absence 

of any objection otherwise by October 14, 2016, the Court would sua sponte order the 

two cases consolidated. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides in pertinent part as follows: 

“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 of the matters in issue in the actions; 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.” 

The purpose of consolidation under Rule 42(a), where cases share such common 

questions of law or fact, is to enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary 

duplication of proceedings and effort. See, e.g., Enterprise Bank v. Saettele, 21 F.3d 

233, 235-36 (8th Cir. 1994); E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 1998). 

Consolidation of appropriate cases also guards against the risk of inconsistent 

adjudications. E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d at 550-51. 

Factually, both cases concern the same facts regarding cancer treatment 

received by decedent Lewis Muir at the U.C. Davis Medical Center and involve the same 

wrongful death and survivor claims. The United States was named in the second lawsuit 

due to allegations that an active duty United States Air Force Major, acting as a surgeon 

at the U.C. Davis Medical Center under an agreement with the David Grant Medical 

Center at Travis AFB, caused the decedent’s death. 

Case 2:14-cv-02716-MCE-CKD Document 36 Filed 10/21/16 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

As indicated above, the Court has already determined that the cases are related 

in the sense that they involve similar questions of fact and of law. Consolidation may be 

proper in instances where numerous lawsuits arise from the same common nucleus of 

operative facts. See Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate Trust, 

2008 WL 4712759, * 1-2 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2009) (consolidation appropriate where 

actions presented similar factual issues). The Court must nonetheless weigh 

considerations of judicial convenience in this regard against any potential for delay, 

confusion and/or prejudice caused by consolidation. Southwest Marine, Inc. v. AAA 

Machine Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 

No party to either of the two claims has responded to the Court’s order to show 

cause why these cases should not be consolidated. Accordingly, there appears no 

dispute that consolidation is appropriate. 

The Court consequently determines that consolidation will promote clarity, 

efficiency and the avoidance of confusion and prejudice given the above-enumerated 

common nucleus of operative facts. Consolidation is a proper exercise of the Court’s 

discretion under those circumstances. See Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 

1284-85 (2d Cir. 1990). 

Both actions are consequently consolidated for all purposes including trial. The 

lead case in this consolidated action shall be Kavalauskas, et al. v. U.C. Davis Medical 

Center, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02716-MCE-CKD. All pending dates in both actions 

are hereby vacated. The parties are directed to submit a new Joint Status Report in the 

consolidated case, not later than fourteen (14) days after this Order is electronically 

signed, in accordance with the requirements outlined within the Court’s August 4, 2015 

Order Requiring Joint Status Report in Case No. 2:14-cv-02716-MCE-CKD. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 20, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-02716-MCE-CKD Document 36 Filed 10/21/16 Page 3 of 3