Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05600/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05600-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alameda County Medical Center
Defendant
Baby S.A.
Plaintiff
John F. Hutchens
Plaintiff
Zamora Moton
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 It is unclear how S.A., through his next friend John F. Hutchens, was able to proceed pro se.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

JOHN HUTCHENS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL

SERVICES AGENCY, et al.

Defendants. 

No. C 06-06870 SBA

CONSOLIDATION ORDER

[Docket No. 75 (case #06-06870) (lead case); 

Docket No. 24 (case #07-05600)]

REQUEST BEFORE THE COURT

Before the Court is an unopposed Motion to Consolidate Cases filed by plaintiffs John F.

Hutchens and Baby S.A., through his next friend, John F. Hutchens, in case 06-06870 [Docket

No. 75] and the same unopposed motion, filed by the same plaintiffs, in related case 07-05600

[Docket No. 24], requesting the Court to consolidate these cases under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 42(a). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the unopposed motions. The

Court also finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b).

BACKGROUND

On November 3, 2006, John F. Hutchens, Zamora Moton, and their minor child S.A.,

through his next friend John F. Hutchens, sued the Alameda County Social Services Agency, the

Department of Children and Family Services (CFS), and a social worker, Rudolpho Hernandez, in

his official capacity, in this Court, in case 06-6870 (the “6870 case”). See Docket No. 1-6870. 

Plaintiffs pled claims arising under California law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in connection with S.A.’s

allegedly unlawful detention, by defendants, at or near his birth, at the Highland Hospital Alameda

County Medical Center (the “Medical Center”). See id. At that time plaintiffs were all pro se.1 See

id.

On October 9, 2007, Hutchens, for himself alone, filed a motion in the 6870 case to join the

Case 4:07-cv-05600-SBA Document 36 Filed 04/04/08 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 This motion was not given a hearing date, and is apparently still pending. The Court denies

this motion as moot, in this order.

2

Medical Center under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.2

 See Docket No. 55-6870. On

November 2, 2007, the plaintiffs sued the Medical Center, in case 07-5600 (the “5600 case”), raising

similar claims to those raised in the 6870 case, in connection with the same allegedly unlawful

detention giving rise to that case. See Docket No. 1-5600. The 5600 case was assigned to

Magistrate Judge Zimmerman. See id. at 1. Plaintiffs were represented by Frances S. Kaminer, Esq.

and Walter K. Pyle, Esq. See id.

On November 7, 2007, in the 6870 case, the Court granted a motion filed by Hutchens for

himself and S.A., to substitute counsels Kaminer and Pyle for Hutchens. See Docket No. 60-6870. 

On November 17, 2007, in the 6870 case, the Court granted Moton’s motion to substitute David J.

Beauvais, Esq. for herself. See Docket No. 65-6870. On November 23, 2007, in the 5800 case,

Magistrate Judge Zimmerman granted Moton’s motion to substitute Beauvais for Kaminer and Pyle. 

See Docket No. 5-5600. On January 14, 2008, on the Medical Center’s motion, the 5600 case was

reassigned to Judge Jenkins. See Docket No. 13. 

On February 7, 2008, on Hutchens’ and S.A.’s unopposed motions, the Court ordered the

6780 case related to the 5600 case. See Docket Nos. 72-6870 and 18-5600. On February 20, 2008,

Hutchens and S.A. filed motions to consolidate the 6870 case [Docket No. 75-6870] and the 5600

case [Docket No. 24-5600], which have been unopposed.

A case management conference is set for April 29, 2008, in both cases. See Docket Nos. 78-

6870, 32-5600. The Medical Center’s motion to dismiss, in the 5600 case, is set for hearing on the

same day. See Docket No. 29-5600.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) states:

(a) Consolidation. If actions before the court involve a common question of

law or fact, the court may:

(1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;

(2) consolidate the actions; or

Case 4:07-cv-05600-SBA Document 36 Filed 04/04/08 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

(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).

///

ANALYSIS

These two cases involve the same plaintiffs. The defendants are related in that the County’s

social worker detained S.A. at the Medical Center. The same facts are at issue in both cases. The

legal issues are the same or similar, in that plaintiffs allege the defendants and their agents worked

together to violate plaintiffs’ state and federal civil rights. Likewise, the relief sought is similar in

both cases. Essentially, there is one case split into two. As a result, the Court will avoid an

unnecessary duplication of labor and expense, and possibly conflicting results, if it consolidates

these matters. Also, the motions are unopposed.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs Hutchens’ and S.A.’s unopposed Motion to

Consolidate Cases [Docket No. 75 in case 06-06870] and GRANTS their unopposed Motion to

Consolidate Cases [Docket No. 24 in case 07-05600]. As a result:

(1) Case number 07-05600 is consolidated with case number 06-06870. Case number

07-05600 is CLOSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case file for case number 07-

05600. All dates and deadlines set in 07-05600 are VACATED. The dates and deadlines currently

set in 06-06870 shall apply to all proceedings. Counsel are instructed that this consolidated action

will be known as Hutchens v. Alameda County Social Services Agency, and all future filings shall be

under Case Number 06-06870 SBA. 

(2) The hearing set for April 29, 2008, at 1:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3 of the United States

Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, 3rd Floor, Oakland, California, 94612, for the Medical Center’s

motion to dismiss, in case number 07-05600, Docket No. 29, is CONTINUED to April 29, 2008,

at 1:00 p.m., in the same location, and shall be heard under case number 06-06870.

(3) The Motion to join Alameda County Medical Center as a party to this case, Docket

No. 55 in case number 06-06870, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:07-cv-05600-SBA Document 36 Filed 04/04/08 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

April 4, 2008 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-05600-SBA Document 36 Filed 04/04/08 Page 4 of 4