Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00661/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00661-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

DAVID ANTHONY RENDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants.

1:05-CV-00661 OWW DLB

1:05-CV-01017 OWW DLB

1:06-CV-00233 OWW DLB

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE

GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ AND REBECCA

RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants.

LUPE E. MARTINEZ AND RALPH C.

RENDON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants.

1. INTRODUCTION

Defendants move to consolidate Rendon v. Fresno, 1:05-CV00661 OWW DLB (“Rendon complaint”), Rodriguez v. Fresno, 1:05-CVCase 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 1 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 18
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

01017 OWW DLB (“Rodriguez complaint”), and Martinez v. Fresno,

1:06-CV-00233 OWW DLB (“Martinez complaint”). Plaintiffs Gabriel

Rodriguez and Rebecca Rodriguez (“Rodriguez Plaintiffs”) oppose

the motion. 

All three lawsuits allege that officers of the Fresno Police

Department (“FPD”) acted unlawfully when they responded to a

disturbance at a party that took place on March 5, 2005 at 4519

East Mono Avenue in Fresno, California. David Rendon resides at

that location. His complaint alleges that police unlawfully

entered his home, used excessive force against him, and conspired

to violate his civil rights. Gabriel and Rebecca Rodriguez

(“Rodriguez”) were guests at the party. Their complaint alleges

that they were both severely beaten by an officer before both

were falsely arrested. Lupe E. Martinez (“Martinez”) and Ralph

C. Rendon were also guests at the party. Their complaint also

alleges that police used excessive force in arresting them and

that the police conspired to violate their civil rights. 

2. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff David Rendon filed his compliant on May 20, 2005. 

(05-CV-00661, Doc. 1., Complaint.) He then filed a first amended

complaint on August 29, 2005. (05-CV-00661, Doc. 29., First

Amended Complaint ("Rendon FAC").) Defendants filed an answer to

the Rendon FAC on December 1, 2005. (05-CV-00661, Doc. 40.,

Defendants' Answer to Amended Complaint.) A jury trial for

Rendon is scheduled for September 26, 2006. (05-CV-00661, Doc.

45, Scheduling Order.) 

The Rodriguez complaint was filed on August 5, 2005. (05-

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 2 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 18
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

The discovery cutoff date for Rendon was originally May 15,

1

2006. Upon consolidating with Rodriguez for discovery purposes,

the Rendon discovery cutoff was extended to June 2, 2006. 

3

CV-01017, Doc. 1., Complaint (“Rodriguez complaint”).) 

Defendants filed an answer to the Rodriguez complaint on August

30, 2005. (05-CV-01017, Doc. 8., Answer.) On September 22,

2005, Defendants filed a motion to consolidate Rendon v. Fresno,

05-CV-0661 and Rodriguez v. Fresno, 05-CV-01017. (05-CV-00661,

Doc. 32., Motion to Consolidate Cases; 05-CV-01017, Doc. 11.,

Motion to Consolidate Cases.) On October 21, 2005 the Rodriguez

Plaintiff's opposed the motion. (05-CV-01017, Doc. 12.,

Memorandum/Response in Opposition re Motion to Consolidate

Cases.) Defendants filed their reply to the Rodriguez opposition

on October 31, 2005. (05-CV-01017, Doc. 15., Reply to Response

to Motion to Consolidate.) On December 1, 2005 the cases were

consolidated for discovery purposes only. The discovery cut off

date is June 2, 2006 . (05-CV-01017, Doc. 23., Order.) 1

Consolidation for trial purposes was denied subject to

reconsideration at the final pretrial conference. (05-CV-01017,

Doc. 18., Order Regarding Consolidation.) A jury trial for

Rodriguez is scheduled for September 26, 2006. (05-CV-01017, Doc.

23, Order.) 

The Martinez complaint was filed on March 1, 2006. (06-CV00233, Doc. 1., Complaint (“Martinez complaint”).) Defendants

filed an answer to the Martinez complaint on March 21, 2006. 

(06-CV-00233, Doc. 13., Answer.) Defendants then filed a motion

to consolidate Rendon v. Fresno, 05-CV-0661, Rodriguez v. Fresno,

05-CV-01017 and Martinez v. Fresno, 06-CV-00233 on April 7, 2006. 

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 3 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 18
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

4

(05-CV-00661, Doc. 47., Motion to Consolidate Cases; 05-CV-01017,

Doc. 28., Motion to Consolidate Cases; 06-CV-00233, Doc. 15.,

Motion to Consolidate Cases.) On May 1, 2006, the Rodriguez

Plaintiffs again opposed Defendants' motion to consolidate. (05-

CV-01017, Doc. 39., Memorandum/Response in Opposition re Motion

to Consolidate Cases.) On May 9, 2005 Defendants filed their

reply to the Rodriguez Plaintiffs' opposition. (05-CV-01017,

Doc. 44., Reply to Response to Motion to Consolidate Cases.) The

initial scheduling conference is set for July 12, 2006. (06-CV00233, Doc. 3.) There has been no scheduling conference in the

Martinez case, no trial date is set. Further, at the hearing for

this matter Ms. Martinez stated that she will obtain an attorney. 

3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINTS

A. Rendon v. Fresno, 1:05-CV-00661 OWW DLB.

Pro se Plaintiff David Rendon alleges in his complaint that

on March 5, 2005, he hosted a welcome home party for his brother,

George Rendon, to celebrate George’s safe return from a tour of

duty in Iraq. (Rendon FAC, at ¶15.) The party took place at

Plaintiff’s home, located at 4519 East Mono Ave, in Fresno,

California. (Id.) David Rendon alleges that “[d]uring the

course of the party, two men exchanged words” and that “[t]o

avoid any kind of confrontation, Plaintiff [and others] separated

the two men.” (Id.) According to David Rendon’s complaint,

while he and others were restraining the two men, approximately

twelve to fifteen FPD officers arrived at the house and “started

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 4 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 4 of 18
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

David Rendon alleges that numerous “named Parties” were

2

injured when Defendants Tofoya and Manfredi struck them with

batons and threw them onto the floor, and asserts that some of

these “named parties” were hospitalized as a result of their

injuries. (Rendon FAC at ¶18.) According to the Rendon

complaint, the named parties are: “George Rendon, Ricardo

Rendon, Lawrence Rendon, John Nunez, Jr., Nasaria Diane Rendon,

David J. Rendon, Priscilla Rendon, Vivian Centeno, Ralph C.

Rendon, Lupe E. Martinez, and Claudia L. Rendon...are injured

parties in this Civil Action.” (Rendon FAC, at ¶2.) However,

these individuals are not named as plaintiffs in his complaint.

As a general rule, a plaintiff cannot pursue claims based upon

injuries suffered by others. Lupe E. Martinez and Ralph C.

Rendon have since filed their own suit. 06-CV-00233, Doc. 1.,

Complaint. 

5

hitting the named parties with batons and using force that was

2

unreasonable....” (Id. at ¶17.) David Rendon specifically

alleges that the force employed by Defendants to arrest him was

excessive. (Id. at ¶21.) 

The first cause of action in the Rendon complaint alleges

that FPD officers Manfredi and Tafoya, along with other FPD

officers, unlawfully entered Plaintiff David Rendon’s home and

used excessive force in the course of arresting him. (Rendon FAC

at ¶¶12-24.) The second cause of action alleges that the City of

Fresno (“City”) negligently hired, trained, staffed, and

supervised the officers involved in the allegedly unlawful entry

and use of force. (Id. at ¶¶25-29.) Plaintiff’s third claim is

that Defendants Manfredi and Tafoya “conspir[ed] to violate [his]

constitutional rights by falsifying [a] Police Report.” (Id. at

¶33.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants are liable

under Article I, sections 7 and 13 of the California Constitution

as well as under California Civil Code sections 52 and 52.1, for

violating his civil rights in using excessive force and falsely

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 5 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 5 of 18
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

6

arresting him. (Id. at ¶41-44.)

B. Rodriguez v. Fresno, 1:05-CV-01017 OWW DLB.

Plaintiffs Gabriel and Rebecca Rodriguez arrived at the

party a short time before police came on the scene. According to

their complaint, “within moments of [the Rodriguez’s] arrival,

City of Fresno police officer [Marcus Tafoya] ran unannounced

through the front doorway waving his baton in the air and

shouting at people....” (Rodriguez Complaint, at ¶10.) The

complaint further alleges that Officer Tafoya approached the

couple and began to strike Mr. Rodriguez, eventually causing his

“head to burst open and start gushing blood.” (Id. at ¶11.) Mr.

Rodriguez fell to the ground and his wife tried to cover him to

protect him from further injury. (Id. at ¶12.) Tafoya continued

to strike Mr. Rodriguez and “proceeded to strike Rebecca numerous

times in the legs, arms and back with his baton.” (Id. at ¶13.) 

Mr. Rodriguez was handcuffed and placed under arrest. He was

transported first to the hospital and then to jail where he

remained until later that night. Mrs. Rodriguez was handcuffed

and first taken to the police station. She was later taken by

ambulance to a hospital where she was handcuffed to a gurney. 

She was released later that morning after having been charged

with battery, resisting arrest, and fighting in public.

The Rodriguez’s complaint names as Defendants Officer Tafoya

in his individual capacity, along with the City. The complaint

alleges that the City is liable because Officer Tafoya’s actions

were undertaken pursuant to a policy, pattern, practice and

custom of the City, because the City has not effectively trained

its officers; has assigned as training officers individuals known

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 6 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 6 of 18
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

7

to engage in illegal practices; and has sanctioned the unlawful

practices through deliberate or gross indifference. The

complaint specifically alleges that all named Defendants’ conduct

constitutes:

(1) Unreasonable use of force in

violation of the Fourth Amendment. 

(Rodriguez complaint at ¶ 25.)

(2) Assault and battery. (Id. at ¶¶27-

28.)

(3) Negligence in the performance of

their duties by, among other

things, entering the house without

just cause, using a baton to strike

Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez, failing to

devote sufficient resources to

training and supervision regarding

the use of force and procedures for

arresting and detaining

individuals. (Id. at ¶32.)

C. Martinez, et al. v. Fresno, 1:06-CV-00233 OWW DLB 

Pro se Plaintiffs Lupe E. Martinez and Ralph C. Rendon

allege in their complaint that they were guests at the party on

March 5, 2005. (Martinez Complaint, ¶16.) During the course of

the party two men exchanged words. (Id.) Family members

separated the two men to avoid physical confrontation. (Id.) As

the two men were restrained, approximately twelve to fifteen

police officers arrived at the home. (Id. at ¶18.) The

complaint alleges that "without investigating the incident or

without provocation" the police officers "started hitting people

with batons and using force that was unreasonable." (Id.) 

The complaint alleges that Martinez was trying to stop the

verbal confrontation when Defendant officer Tafoya arrived. 

(Martinez Complaint, ¶24.) The complaint specifically alleges

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 7 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 7 of 18
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

8

that upon arrival Tafoya "immediately started to hit and throw

people around." (Martinez complaint) Plaintiff Martinez was

five months pregnant at the time of the incident. (Id.) 

Martinez alleges that she suffered injuries to her arms, legs,

and back as a result of Tafoya throwing her to the ground. (Id.) 

She alleges that Tafoya knew or should have known that Martinez

was pregnant at the time of the incident. (Id.)

Plaintiff Ralph Rendon also alleges that he was trying to

stop the verbal confrontation when Defendant Sergeant Manfredi

arrived on the scene. (Id. at ¶25.) Plaintiff Ralph Rendon

claims that he saw Sergeant Manfredi "hitting and pushing other

people from the porch." (Id.) Sergeant Manfredi proceeded to

push Plaintiff Ralph Rendon to the ground face down and attempted

to place handcuffs on him. (Id.) The complaint then states that

"at that point, Manfredi started hitting Plaintiff [Ralph] Rendon

on the head with his weapon." (Id.) As a result, Plaintiff

Ralph Rendon suffered injuries to his head and body and was taken

to a hospital for treatment of those injuries. (Id.) 

The Martinez complaint names as Defendants the City of

Fresno, the Chief of Fresno City Police Department, Jerry Dyer,

("Chief Dyer"), Sergeant Manfredi, Officer Tafoya, and other FPD

officers. (Martinez Complaint, ¶4; ¶¶ 6-7.) The complaint also

brings a claim against Sergeant Manfredi and Officer Tafoya in

their individual capacities. (Id. at ¶9.) The first cause of

action in the Martinez complaint alleges that FPD officers

Manfredi and Tafoya, along with other FPD officers, used

excessive force in the course of responding to the disturbance

and in arresting Plaintiff Martinez and Plaintiff Ralph Rendon.

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 8 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 8 of 18
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

9

(Id. at ¶19.) The second cause of action alleges that the City

of Fresno negligently hired, trained, staffed and supervised the

officers involved. (Id. at ¶29.) As a result, the City of

Fresno and Chief Dyer breached a duty of care to plaintiffs to

protect citizens against the use of excessive force by Fresno

Police Officers. (Id. at ¶30.) Plaintiffs' third claim is that

"Defendants Sergeant Manfredi and Officer Tafoya conspired

together [to] falsely creat[e] the allegations of the police

report in order to justify their unlawful acts and conduct."

(Id. at ¶35.) Finally, Plaintiffs allege that all Defendants are

liable under Article I, §§ 7 and 13 of the California

Constitution for violation of their civil rights. (Id. at ¶¶43-

45.)

4. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides: 

When actions involving a common question of

law or fact are pending before the court,

[the court] may order a joint hearing or

trial of any or all 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. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Rule 42(a) permits consolidation of

“actions involving a common question of law or fact.” Paxonet

Communs., Inc. v. Transwitch Corp., 303 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1028-

1029 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Once a common question has been

established, “consolidation is within the broad discretion of the

district court.” Id. (internal quotations omitted.) But “even

where cases involve some common issues of law or fact,

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 9 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 9 of 18
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

10

consolidation may be inappropriate where individual issues

predominate.” See IN re Consol. Parlodel Litig., 182 F.R.D. 441,

447 (D.N.J. 1998). To determine whether to consolidate, the

interest of judicial convenience is weighed against the potential

for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation. Id.

(citing Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Machine Shop, Inc.,

720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989).) The moving party bears

the burden of showing consolidation is appropriate. Consol.

Parlodel Litig., 182 F.R.D. at 447.

5. DISCUSSION

A. Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate Over

Individual Questions.

Defendants argue that Rendon, Rodriguez, and Martinez should

be consolidated because common questions of law and fact

predominate over individual questions in each case. They claim

that all actions arise from the same underlying incident. They

argue that the central factual issue in each case is the nature

of the disturbance upon the police officers' arrival at the

Rendon residence. Defendants contend that in all three lawsuits,

the larger factual questions pertain to the surrounding

circumstances that led the FPD to respond to the call. 

The Rodriguez Plaintiffs argue that individual questions of

fact and law predominate over questions common to the three cases

such that consolidation would be inappropriate. They claim that

a particularized set of facts is involved for each individual

plaintiff and that underlie the specific misconduct alleged in

each case. Accordingly, the Rodriguez case involves a different

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 10 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 10 of 18
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

11

factual predicate because the Rodriguez Plaintiffs were inside

the house when the FPD arrived on the scene. Plaintiffs David

Rendon, Lupe E. Martinez, and Ralph C. Rendon were outside the

house when the incident occurred. Because the Rodriguez

Plaintiffs were inside the house, they claim that their lawsuit

will implicate fewer police officers and require far fewer

witnesses than in Rendon and Martinez. Lastly, they frame the

issue in the Rodriguez lawsuit as whether Officer Tafoya

specifically violated the Rodriguez plaintiffs’ rights, and that

mere overlap of some legal standards common to all cases does not

warrant consolidation. 

The Rodriguez Plaintiffs cite Denney v. Takaoka, 1992 U.S.

Dist. Lexis 13372 (N.D. Cal. 1992) as the principal case in

support of their argument. In Denney, the Court denied

consolidation reasoning that even though the same legal standards

would apply to both cases, separate factual issues underlie the

alleged misconduct in each case. Denney v. Takaoka, 1992 U.S.

Dist. Lexis 13372, 3 (N.D. Cal. 1992). The Denney case is

factually distinguishable from Rodriguez, and instead serves to

undermine the Rodriguez Plaintiffs’ argument. Plaintiff Denney,

sought to consolidate her civil rights complaint with another

pending civil rights action against the University of California

Police Department at Berkeley. Id. at 3. Both actions involved

the police arrests of Plaintiffs for protesting in the same park. 

Id. at 2-3. However, the arrests occurred on three separate and

distinct incidents that were months apart. Id. at 3-4. The

circumstances and witnesses for each case differed. Id. Based

on this, the court found that consolidation would be improper. 

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 11 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 11 of 18
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

 However, the Court did not find that the magistrate 3

abused his discretion in denying Plaintiff’s motion given the

permissive nature of Rule 42(a) and because Plaintiffs were still

able to establish their claims without consolidation. 

12

Id. at 4. Contrary to Denney, the circumstances in Rendon,

Rodriguez, and Martinez arise out of the same underlying incident

relevant to all three cases which occurred at the same location,

time, and date, and involved all the same parties who were

present. The circumstances and witnesses for each case will not

substantially differ here as they did in Denney. 

The case of Young v. City of Augusta, 59 F.3d 1160 (11th

Cir. 1995), is more instructive. This civil rights case involved

Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against prison officials for

improper treatment of her mental health condition. Plaintiff

Young alleged that the City of Augusta failed to adequately

select or train jail personnel to deal with inmates suffering

from mental illness. Young v. City of Augusta, 59 F3d 1160, 1165

(11th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff Young's attorney sought to

consolidate her case with the case of another of his clients who

also brought an Eighth Amendment claim against the City Jail. 

Id. at 1165. The court noted that there were differences between

the two actions in that each plaintiff alleged a different set of

facts concerning his or her particular medical needs and the

responses made by jail employees. Id at 1168. Nevertheless, the

court reasoned that consolidation would have been appropriate .

3

Id. at 1169. Both actions contained the same allegations of

deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' medical needs by jail

officials. Id. Both actions claimed a city custom, practice, or

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 12 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 12 of 18
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

13

policy of deliberate indifference in providing mental health

treatment. Id. The core issue of liability was whether the city

could be held accountable for Plaintiffs' alleged constitutional

deprivations. Id. Both cases were assigned to the same district

judge and followed a similar course of development. Id. at 1169. 

In both actions the parties would have to prove the same elements

to establish their claims. Id. at 1169. 

In this case, the Plaintiffs in Rendon, Rodriguez, and

Martinez all bring identical claims for civil rights violations

under the Fourth Amendment, negligence against all Defendants,

and allege a pattern and practice of use of excessive force by

the FPD. Factual differences do exist between Rendon, Rodriguez,

and Martinez. However, they share the same core issues of

whether Defendants can be held accountable for the alleged civil

rights and state law deprivations claimed by the Plaintiffs. 

It is recognized that the proof required to establish such

claims will not be entirely identical in each case. Individual

differences exist as to how each plaintiff was allegedly injured. 

However, the officer witnesses will be similar. Third party

witnesses who attended the party will overlap, and the Monell

witnesses are identical. All cases were assigned to the same

district court. In all three actions the Plaintiffs must prove a

city custom, practice, or policy of permitting officers to use

excessive force, failing to train, and ratifying and/or ignoring

alleged cover ups and fabrication of evidence to provide post hoc

justification for lawless tactics. This necessarily mandates

proof that the alleged violations were not isolated instances. 

Denney, 59 F.3d at 1169. There are common questions of law in

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 13 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 13 of 18
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

14

the Rendon, Rodriguez, and Martinez actions predominate over the

individual ones. The issue, however, is whether the benefits of

consolidating the cases for trial outweigh the potential

prejudice to the parties. 

B. The Procedural Stages Of Rendon, Rodriguez and Martinez

Plaintiffs in Rodriguez contend that consolidation would be

improper because it would result in a significant delay since the

cases are in different procedural stages. In support of their

argument the Rodriguez Plaintiffs cite Zacky Farms v. FMC Corp.,

2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24255 (E.D. Cal. 2001). In Zacky Farms the

Court declined to consolidate an environmental contribution

action ("The FMC Action") with an environmental cost recovery

action ("The Zacky Action"). Zacky Farms v. FMC Corp., 2001 U.S.

Dist. Lexis 24255, 3-4 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Since both actions were

highly complex and a consolidated trial would force the parties

to participate in extensive evidence of the other parties' claims

that were not pertinent, consolidation would disserve party and

judicial economy. Id. at 15. The Court found that while

commonalities existed between both actions, each action involved

different uses and owners of the contaminated sites as well as

different contaminants at different sites. Id. The strongest

ground against consolidation was the significant procedural

differences between the FMC and Zacky actions. Id. The FMC

action had been actively prepared for litigation for two years.

Id. at 16. The FMC action was ready for trial. Id. at 15.

Consolidation would delay the FMC action for at least one year

based on the Zacky cases complexities, in depth discovery, and

additional parties. Id. at 16. Even though the documents and

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 14 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 14 of 18
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

15

discovery in the FMC action might assist the Zacky action,

significant time would have been required to review the documents

and discovery to ascertain what further information was needed.

Id.

i. Consolidation of Rendon and Rodriguez Will Cause

Such a Substantial Delay That The Rodriguez

Plaintiffs Will Be Prejudiced.

Zacky Farms differs from the Rendon and Rodriguez, lawsuits

in several respects. The Rendon and Rodriguez actions are not so

different or so highly complex from each other that consolidation

would overburden Plaintiffs to engage in extensive discovery not

relevant to their individual claims. The Rendon and Rodriguez

actions involve the same claims, the same underlying incident,

the same defendants and the same core issues. The proof required

to establish each claim is identical in each case and the

difference in the witnesses for each case would be the four

plaintiffs and any different percipient witnesses to each

plaintiff’s individual experience. While procedural differences

do exist, these differences are not so significant that they

would substantially delay the Rodriguez lawsuit. Both cases have

been consolidated for discovery purposes. Both cases have the

same trial date of September 26, 2005. Consolidation for the

purposes of trial in this case would avoid serious duplication of

effort in two separate trials. 

ii. Consolidation With Martinez Would Substantially

Delay The Rendon and Rodriguez Proceedings.

The difference in procedural stages between the three cases

would substantially delay the Rendon and Rodriguez trials if

Martinez were to be consolidated. The Rendon case was filed on

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 15 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 15 of 18
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

16

May 20, 2005. The Rodriguez case was filed on August 5, 2005.

The discovery cut off date for both Rendon and Martinez is June

2, 2006, less than three weeks after the hearing on this motion.

The Rendon and Rodriguez cases are nearing trial on September 26,

2006. 

The Martinez case was filed on March 1, 2006, ten months

after the Rendon case was filed and seven months after the

Rodriguez case was filed. Martinez is still in the formative

stages. The initial scheduling conference is not set until July

12, 2006. No trial date or discovery cut off has been set in

Martinez. Even if the Rodriguez Plaintiffs were to share

discovery in the Martinez case, the Martinez Plaintiffs would

still require time to review the documents and discovery.

Defendants advance no meaningful justification for delay in the

Rendon and Rodriguez proceedings. Because the parties are

different there will be no claim or issue preclusive effect. 

While Defendants may not want to try two Monell cases and go

through the same witnesses, to consolidate Martinez with Rendon

and Rodriguez would cause a substantial and unfair delay. The

court committed to the parties in Rendon and Martinez that the

case will proceed to trial September 26, 2005. That is the date

that the case will be tried. 

C. Consolidation Poses A Potential For Jury Confusion. 

The Rodriguez Plaintiffs also argue that a consolidated

trial would prejudice their case because it would require the

jury to review extraneous evidence and make decisions relevant to

the distinct legal claims of Rendon. They argue that there is a

real risk the jury would confuse the evidence or legal questions

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 16 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 16 of 18
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

 At oral argument, Counsel for the Rodriguez Plaintiffs

4

agreed to consolidate with the Rendon action for trial purposes,

provided the jury was properly instructed to refrain from

applying any allegations against Plaintiff David Rendon to the

Rodriguez plaintiffs. 

17

regarding the other individual Plaintiffs, whose factual

situations are different. They also claim that a jury's

simultaneous considerations of the evidence in the three cases

may lead it to draw inferences based the conduct of other

plaintiffs, rather than decide each case on its own merits. 

"The extent to which the risk of prejudice and confusion

might attend a consolidated trial may be alleviated by utilizing

cautionary instructions to the jury during the trial and

controlling the manner in which Plaintiffs’ claims and defenses

are submitted to the jury for consolidation." Hendrix v.

Raybestos Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985); 

James William Moore et al., Moore's Manual: Federal Practice and

Procedure, § 20.02 (Matthew Bender ed., 2006). The jury will be

dealing with the individual claims of six plaintiffs only two of

whom are represented by counsel. A potential for spillover

prejudices exists if the Martinez action is consolidated with

Rendon and Rodriguez actions. Even if instructions are given,

the jurors may be confused or misled by the cases of all six

plaintiffs . 

4

//

//

//

//

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 17 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 17 of 18
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

18

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants motion to

consolidate Rendon v. Fresno, 1:05-CV-00661 OWW DLB and Rodriguez

v. Fresno, 1:05-CV-01017 OWW DLB is GRANTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF

TRIAL. Defendants’ motion to consolidate Martinez v. Fresno,

1:06-CV-00233 OWW DLB is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED

Dated: May 31, 2006

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

_____________________________

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB Document 63 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 18 of 18

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/02/06 Page 18 of 18