Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00558/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00558-8/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

I.R., a minor, individually and as successor in 

interest to Raul Rosas and by and through her 

guardian ad litem, Claudia Nava; and H.R., a 

minor, individually and as successor in interest 

to Raul Rosas and by and through her Guardian 

Ad Litem, Nora Nava,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF FRESNO, a municipality; OFFICER 

MIGUEL ALVAREZ (#1351), an individual; 

OFFICER SAMMY ASHWORTH (#1011), an 

individual; OFFICER TROY MILLER 

(#1197), an individual; COUNTY OF 

FRESNO, a municipality; DEPUTY 

CHRISTIAN LIGHTNER (#6453), an 

individual; DEPUTY MANUEL FLORES 

(#4060), an individual; and DOES 6-10, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00558-AWI-GSA

Related Case No.: 1:13-CV-00850-AWI-GSA

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES 

AND MODIFYING SCHEDULING

ORDER

(Doc. 68)

On October 4, 2013, the parties stipulated to consolidate I.R., et al. v. City of Fresno, et 

al., Case Number 1:12-CV-00558-AWI-GSA, with the related case Rosas, et al. v. City of 

Case 1:12-cv-00558-AWI-EPG Document 71 Filed 10/18/13 Page 1 of 4
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

Fresno, et al., Case Number 1:13-CV-00850-AWI-GSA. (Doc. 68). The Court has considered 

the consolidation request and adopts the stipulation.

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

Consolidation. 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 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).

The purpose of consolidation under Rule 42(a) is to enhance trial court efficiency by 

avoiding unnecessary duplication of proceedings and effort. See Team Enterprises., LLC v. 

Western Inv. Real Estate Trust, 2008 WL 4712759 at * 1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2008). 

Consolidation of cases also guards against the risk of inconsistent adjudications. Id. The Court 

has broad discretion to order consolidation of cases pending in the same district. See Investors 

Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court or Central Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989).

Here, both actions filed by all four Plaintiffs, H.R., I.R. and Raul and Eva Rosas, name 

the same defendants and involve the death of Raul Rosas. Similarly, both actions raise 

essentially the same issues of fact and law. Consolidation will not only promote judicial 

efficiency, but it will prevent inconsistent outcomes and is not prejudicial to the parties. As such, 

consolidation is appropriate.

Based on the parties’ stipulation, the Scheduling Order in I.R., et al. v. City of Fresno, et 

al., Case Number 1:12-CV-00558-AWI-GSA (Doc. No. 24), will be the controlling scheduling 

order and is modified as follows:1

New Date

Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off February 28, 2014

Expert Disclosure March 28, 2014

 

1

 The parties submitted two sets of proposed dates for the modified scheduling order, however, neither stipulation 

took into consideration the appropriate spacing of dates as set forth in this Court’s minute order issued on October 

11, 2013 (Doc. 69). Therefore, some of the proposed dates were modified by the Court.

Case 1:12-cv-00558-AWI-EPG Document 71 Filed 10/18/13 Page 2 of 4
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

Supplemental Expert Disclosure April 25, 2014

Expert Discovery Cut-Off May 16, 2014

Non-Dispositive Motion Filing May 23, 2014 

Dispositive Motion Filing July 18, 2014

Pretrial Conference Sept. 18, 2014 at 8:30 before AWI in Courtroom 2

Trial Dec. 2, 2014 at 8:30 before AWI in Courtoom 2

Additionally, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, once consolidated, the depositions and 

written discovery already served, responded to, and/or completed in each related case will have 

the same force and effect as if they had been taken or served and/or responded to in the other 

related case. Finally, the depositions of parties and witnesses will occur only once for the 

purpose of both related cases, except that Defendants may depose Raul Rosas, Eva Rosas, 

Claudia Nava, and/or Nora Nava a second time on the issue of damages claimed by Raul Rosas 

and Eva Rosas only. Plaintiffs reserve their right to object to a second deposition of Raul Rosas, 

Eva Rosas, Claudia Nava, and/or Nora Nava on any other basis, including duplication of 

questions and issues already asked.

Based on the above, the Court ORDERS that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to consolidate I.R., et al. v. City of 

Fresno, et al., Case Number 1:12-CV-00558-AWI-GSA with the related case Rosas, et al. v. City 

of Fresno, et al., Case Number 1:13-CV-00850-AWI-GSA. Insofar as Case Number 1:12-CV00558-AWI-GSA was the first action filed with the court, it will be considered the lead case. 

The Clerk of the Court IS DIRECTED to close Case Number 1:13-CV-00850-AWI-GSA. The 

court will construe the consolidated cases as one action.

2. The parties SHALL IDENTIFY all future pleadings by the case number of the 

lead case.

Case 1:12-cv-00558-AWI-EPG Document 71 Filed 10/18/13 Page 3 of 4
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

3. This Court’s Scheduling Order in the lead case issued on September 13, 2012 

(Doc. No. 24) is modified as outlined above. All other dates and orders contained in the 

Scheduling Order issued on September 13, 2012 (Doc. No. 24) remain in full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

cf0di0

Case 1:12-cv-00558-AWI-EPG Document 71 Filed 10/18/13 Page 4 of 4