Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01671/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01671-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 09:0010 Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award

---

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

FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12cv1671-MMA (BLM)

CASE NO. 12cv1896-MMA (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

CASES

[Doc. No. 7 - 12cv1671]

[Doc. No. 5 - 12cv1896]

vs.

DONALD H. BROWN,

Respondent.

DONALD H. BROWN,

 

 Petitioner,

 vs.

FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC,

 Respondent.

An arbitration award was issued on June 4, 2012 in the matter of Donald H. Brown v.

Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, FINRA Dispute Resolution No. 10-05727. On June 29, 2012,

Donald H. Brown (“Brown”) filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award in the Superior Court

of the State of California, County of San Diego (“state petition”). On July 3, 2012, Fidelity

Brokerage Services LLC (“Fidelity”) filed a petition to modify or correct, or in the alternative

vacate, the award in this Court. See Petition, Case No. 12cv1671-MMA (BLM) (“federal

petition”). Brown has filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award in response to Fidelity’s

federal petition. See Doc. No. 6 (12cv1671). On August 1, 2012, Fidelity removed Brown’s state

- 1 - 12cv1671

Case 3:12-cv-01671-MMA-BLM Document 12 Filed 09/19/12 Page 1 of 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

petition to this Court. See Notice of Removal, Case No. 12cv1896-MMA (BLM) (the “removed

action”). The removed action was transferred to the undersigned pursuant to the Low Number

Rule. See Doc. No. 3 (12cv1896). As such, the two pending actions are related but have not been

consolidated. On August 14, 2012, Fidelity filed a motion to consolidate the two actions. 

See Doc. No. 7 (12cv1671); Doc. No. 5 (12cv1896). Brown has filed a notice of non-opposition to

the motion. See Doc. No. 8 (12cv1671). 

ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that “[w]hen actions involving a common

question of law or fact are pending before the court, it . . . may order all actions consolidated . . . .” 

A district court has “broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same

district.” Investors Research Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). The rule

seeks to provide the district court with broad discretion to decide how cases on its docket are to be

tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched with expedition and economy while

providing justice to the parties. See Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 703 (9th Cir. 1984);

Lewis v. City of Fresno, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57083, at *2–*3 (E.D. Cal. 2009). 

Having reviewed the petitions in both actions, the Court finds that they involve the same

parties and share overlapping factual and legal claims. The claims arise out of a common nucleus

of facts and events. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 12cv1671 action and the 12cv1896 

action involve common questions of fact and law. Moreover, the Court concludes that

consolidation would serve the interests of judicial economy, while creating little, if any, potential

for delay, confusion, or prejudice. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 42(a), the Court GRANTS

Fidelity’s motion to consolidate. The 12cv1671-MMA (BLM) action is hereby consolidated with

the 12cv1896-MMA (BLM) action. All future filings shall be under Civil Case No. 12cv1671-

MMA (BLM).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 19, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv1671

Case 3:12-cv-01671-MMA-BLM Document 12 Filed 09/19/12 Page 2 of 2