Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01801/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01801-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Court may consolidate actions involving 

a common question of law or fact, and consolidation is proper when it serves the purposes of judicial 

economy and convenience. The Ninth Circuit explained that the Court “has broad discretion under this 

rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. United States District 

Court for the Central District of California, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether to 

TIMOTHY MORGRET,

 Plaintiff,

v.

VALLEY INDUSTRIAL X-RAY AND 

INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

TODD MOORE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

VALLEY INDUSTRIAL X-RAY AND 

INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case Nos.: 1:13-cv-01801 JLT 

ORDER CONSOLIDATING THE ACTIONS

CASE NO.: 1:13-cv-01875 JLT

Case 1:13-cv-01801-JLT Document 31 Filed 09/04/14 Page 1 of 2
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

consolidate actions, the 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).

Here, Plaintiffs Timothy Morgret and Todd Moore bring similar class claims against Defendant 

Valley Industrial X-Ray and Inspection Services, Inc., in separate cases of action before this Court: 

Case No. 1:13-cv-01801-JLT and Case No. 1:13-cv-01875-JLT. It appears that the class and collective 

claims raised in the Morgret matter are broader such to encompass those claims raised in the Moore 

matter. Further, the cases involve similar claims and questions of fact. Both Morgret and Moore seek 

to represent classes of Defendant’s current and/or former employees. None of the parties object to 

consolidation of these matters.

Consolidation serves the purposes of minimizing judicial resources, and the Court anticipates 

little risk of delay, confusion, or prejudice if the matters are consolidated. Consequently, consolidation 

is appropriate. See Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008).

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. These actions SHALL be consolidated for all purposes, including trial; and

2. The parties are instructed that all future filings SHALL use the caption set forth above in 

the Morgret matter and SHALL use case number 1:13-cv-01801 JLT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01801-JLT Document 31 Filed 09/04/14 Page 2 of 2