Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00473/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00473-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Northstate University, LLC
Defendant
Ganesh Sankar
Plaintiff
Erika Titus-Lay
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GANESH SANKAR, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE 

UNIVERSITY, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-00473-DAD-JDP

ORDER RELATING AND REASSIGNING 

CASES, GRANTING THE PARTIES’ JOINT 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES, AND 

DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. Nos. 9, 15)

ERIKA TITUS-LAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE 

UNIVERSITY, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-01231-JAM-DB

Before the court is the parties’ joint stipulation requesting that the court consolidate two 

cases pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (i) Sankar v. California 

Northstate University, LLC, 2:24-cv-00473-DAD-JDP, which was filed on February 15, 2024 and 

is currently pending before the undersigned (“Sankar”); and (ii) Titus-Lay v. California 

Northstate University, LLC, 2:24-cv-01231-JAM-DB, which was filed on April 29, 2024 and is 

Case 2:24-cv-00473-DAD-JDP Document 17 Filed 05/15/24 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

currently pending before Senior District Judge John A. Mendez (“Titus-Lay”). (Doc. No. 15.) 

Although the parties did not file their stipulation in the Titus-Lay action, the stipulation filed in 

the Sankar action is signed by all counsel, including counsel of record for the plaintiff in the 

Titus-Lay action. (See id. at 4–5.) 

As a preliminary matter, the parties did not file a notice of related cases in either action as 

required by Local Rule 123. Specifically, Local Rule 123(b) provides that “[c]ounsel who has 

reason to believe that an action on file or about to be filed may be related to another action on file 

(whether or not dismissed or otherwise terminated) shall promptly file in each action and serve on 

all parties in each action a Notice of Related Cases.” L.R. 123(b). Nonetheless, the parties’ 

stipulation expresses the parties’ belief that the two cases are related. (See Doc. No. 15 at 3) 

(“These actions involve allegations by the same or similar parties, and allege the same or similar 

claims, and questions of fact and law—thus, consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and 

duplication of proceedings.”).

Indeed, an examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within 

the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Accordingly, assignment of the above-captioned actions to the 

same district judge and magistrate judge will promote substantial efficiency and economy for the 

court and is likely to be convenient for the parties. The local rules of this district authorize the 

judge with the lowest numbered case to order the reassignment of any higher numbered cases to 

himself or herself, upon determining that this assignment is likely to effect a savings of judicial 

effort. L.R. 123(c). Such good cause appearing here, the court will order that Case No. 2:24-cv01231-JAM-DB be reassigned to the undersigned and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson.

Moreover, pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f 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 (3) issue any other 

orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its discretion, the court “weighs the 

saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or 

expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).

/////

Case 2:24-cv-00473-DAD-JDP Document 17 Filed 05/15/24 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

Here, the court finds that the above-captioned actions involve the same or similar parties, 

claims, and questions of fact or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and 

duplication of proceedings. Thus, good cause exists to consolidate these cases.

Accordingly, 

1. The parties’ joint motion to consolidate cases (Doc. No. 15) is granted;

a. Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint by no later than thirty (30) 

days after entry of this order;

b. Defendant’s response to the consolidated complaint shall be filed by no 

later than thirty (30) days after service of the consolidated complaint; and

c. If defendant’s response is a motion to dismiss, then plaintiffs shall file their 

opposition or statement of non-opposition by no later than thirty (30) days 

after service of that motion, and defendant’s reply shall be filed within 

twenty-one (21) after service of plaintiffs’ opposition;

2. Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss in the Sankar action (Doc. No. 9) is denied 

as having been rendered moot by this order;

3. The above-referenced cases are hereby related and consolidated for all purposes, 

including trial, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a);

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reassign case 2:24-cv-01231-JAM-DB to 

District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson;

5. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file 

documents under only the lead case number. The Clerk of the Court is directed to 

administratively close the member case. Future captions should indicate the lead 

case number followed by the member case numbers as follows:

Lead Case: 2:24-cv-00473-DAD-JDP

Member Case: 2:24-cv-01231-DAD-JDP

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced 

cases; and

/////

Case 2:24-cv-00473-DAD-JDP Document 17 Filed 05/15/24 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

7. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court make appropriate adjustment in the 

assignment of civil cases to compensate for this reassignment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00473-DAD-JDP Document 17 Filed 05/15/24 Page 4 of 4