Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00060/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00060-10/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

COREY LAMAR SMITH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB

FREDERICK BEAGLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00430- LJO-SAB

ABDULLE ABUKAR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00816- LJO-SAB

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 82 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 5
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

RICHARD ADAMS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01226- LJO-SAB

ORDER CONSOLIDATING RELATED CASES

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

On July 9, 2013, a class action was filed in Jackson v. State of California, No. 1:13-cv01055-LJO-SAB. On January 28, 2014, an order issued finding that Jackson was related to Smith 

v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB, a multi-plaintiff action filed based upon the 

same facts. On March 27, 2014, an order issued finding that a similar multi-plaintiff action, 

Beagle v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00430-LJO-SAB, was also a related case.

On May 9, 2014, an order issued in Jackson, Smith, and Beagle requiring the parties to 

show cause issued why these related actions should not be consolidated for pretrial purposes. The 

parties filed responses to the order to show cause. On May 28, 2014, a telephonic conference was 

held to address a discovery dispute and the parties to these actions were ordered to meet and 

confer regarding how discovery could be coordinated in these actions. 

On June 2, 2014, Akubar v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00816-LJO-SAB, was related 

to these actions. The parties filed a joint discovery plan in Jackson on July 8, 2014. On July 11, 

2014, a further telephonic conference was held to address this discovery plan and how it would 

apply to these and subsequently filed actions. On August 12, 2014, Adams v. Schwarzenegger, 

No. 1:14-v-01226-LJO-SAB was related to these actions.

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

common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

42 (a)(2). “The district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in 

the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 

F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). 

The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary cost or delay where the claims and 

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 82 Filed 08/18/14 Page 2 of 5
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

issues contain common aspects of law or fact. E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th 

Cir. 1998). In determining whether to consolidate cases, “a court weighs the interest of judicial 

convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice caused by consolidation.” 

Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F.Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 

The Court finds that Jackson, although related, alleges claims for individuals at an 

increased risk of contracting disseminated disease and also alleges equal protections claims. The 

issues raised in Jackson are sufficiently different from the remaining four actions so that it would 

not serve judicial efficiency to consolidate Jackson with these related actions. Moreover, the 

Plaintiffs in Jackson seek class certification, further distinguishing that case from Smith, Beagle, 

Akubar, and Adams. Discovery in Jackson shall continue to be coordinated as previously agreed 

upon by the parties. However, Jackson shall remain a separate action.

Smith, Beagle, Akubar, and Adams are all proceeding on the claim that state officials 

were deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of harm by exposing the named plaintiffs to 

the risk of contracting Valley Fever. The defendants are all alleged to have participated in 

implementing or continuing the same policy of inaction despite their knowledge of the risk. The 

discovery issues in these actions for those defendants named in the separate complaints will be 

identical in each case. Consolidating these actions will avoid unnecessary costs incurred due to 

identical discovery and motion practice occurring in four separate actions. 

All parties in Smith, Beagle, Akubar, and Adams actions are represented by the same 

counsel and the complaints filed in each action are substantially identical. While there are 

different Plaintiffs in each action, the complaints name the same defendants, assert the same 

claims, and contain the same factual allegations. Common questions of law and fact 

unquestionably exist in these actions. Further, the Court can discern no logical reason why the 

Plaintiffs in each case should be grouped together, as opposed to joined into a consolidated 

action. Each of the individual complaints in Smith, Beagle, Akubar, and Adams combine 

plaintiffs who were housed at different prisons, were incarcerated during different time periods, 

and have different personal attributes affecting their risk of contracting disseminated disease. 

The Court has recently addressed motions to dismiss in Smith and Beagle. The motions 

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 82 Filed 08/18/14 Page 3 of 5
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

to dismiss, responsive pleadings, findings and recommendations, objections, and orders adopting 

were substantially similar, if not identical in each instance. It is in the interest of judicial 

economy to avoid such duplication by consolidating these actions for all pretrial purposes. 

Consolidation will conserve judicial resources and the resources of the parties by addressing 

identical issues in a single case. Resolution of these actions will involve overlapping facts and 

witnesses as to the claims raised. It serves judicial economy to “avoid the inefficiency of 

separate trials involving related parties, witnesses, and evidence.” E.E.O.C., 135 F.3d at 551. 

At this point in the litigation, all four of the cases are in a similar procedural posture. 

Smith and Beagle have been granted the opportunity to file an amended complaint following the 

District Judge’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. Defendants Igbinosa and Winslow have filed a 

notice of appearance in Akubar. No defendants have appeared in Adams. All cases are set for an 

initial scheduling conference on October 10, 2014. Absent consolidation, the Court would 

anticipate addressing the same motion to dismiss in Akubar and Adams that has been decided in 

Smith and Beagle. Consolidation of these actions will not cause a delay, but will actually 

expedite the litigation in Akubar and Adams by allowing Plaintiffs to file a consolidated 

complaint in the action which can be addressed by one responsive pleading. 

There is no risk of confusion due to the consolidation of these actions, as the claims are 

identical as to each named defendant. Similarly, the evidence and issues will be the same in each 

case for each defendant. Finally, the Court can discern no prejudice to any of the parties by 

consolidating these actions and consolidating these actions will avoid the danger of having 

inconsistent verdicts in the related cases. The factors considered weigh in favor of consolidating 

these actions for all purposes.

The parties in Smith and Beagle did not object to the consolidation of the actions for 

pretrial purposes. Since counsel are the same in all actions, the Court does not anticipate an 

objection to consolidation in Akubar or Adams. However, should the parties in Akubar or Adams

have an objection to consolidation of theses actions, they may file their objections for the Court to 

consider.

While this action shall be consolidated for all pretrial purposes, the Court is aware that

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 82 Filed 08/18/14 Page 4 of 5
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

5

procedurally there may come a time when severance may be appropriate. As this action 

progresses, the parties may file a motion for severance should the character of the action change 

to the point where a party believes it is prejudiced due to the consolidation of the actions.

Finally, prior to the initial scheduling conference, the parties are required to file a joint 

scheduling report. See Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference, Smith at ECF No. 57. 

In addition to the contents required to be included in the report pursuant to the Order, the parties 

shall include a dispositive motion plan to address the manner in which dispositives motions shall 

be handled in this action. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office is directed to consolidate Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-

cv-00060-LJO-SAB; Beagle v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00430-LJO-SAB; 

Akubar v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00816-LJO-SAB; and Adams v. 

Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-v-01226-LJO-SAB;

2. Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB shall be designated as the 

lead case; 

3. The parties are instructed to file all documents in case No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJOSAB; 

4. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiffs shall file 

a consolidated complaint in this action; and 

5. The Clerk’s Office is directed to close the related actions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 82 Filed 08/18/14 Page 5 of 5