Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00137/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00137-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maria Hobbs
Plaintiff
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Defendant
RPC Incorporated
Defendant
RPC Incorporated Welfare Fund
Defendant
VF Corporation
Defendant
VF Corporation Health and Welfare Plan
Defendant

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

MARIA HOBBS,

Plaintiff,

v.

METROPOLITIAN LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, RPC INCORPORATED, and 

RPC INCORPORATED WELFARE 

FUND,

Defendants.

Nos. 1:16-cv-00137-DAD-BAM

1:16-cv-00553-DAD-BAM

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

MARIA HOBBS,

Plaintiff,

v.

METROPOLITIAN LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, VF CORPORATION, and 

VF CORPORATION HEALTH AND 

WELFARE PLAN,

Defendants.

Before the court is the parties’ stipulation to consolidate the following related cases: 

 Maria Hobbs v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, RPC Incorporated, and RPC 

Incorporated Welfare Fund, Case No. 1:16-cv-00137-DAD-BAM; and 

Case 1:16-cv-00137-DAD-BAM Document 19 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 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

2

 Maria Hobbs v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, VF Corporation, and VF 

Corporation Health and Welfare Plan, Case No. 1:16-cv-00553-DAD-BAM.

(Case No. 1:16-cv-00137-DAD-BAM, Doc. No. 18.) 

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 the court’s 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). Here, 

the court finds that the related 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 grant the parties’ stipulation. 

Accordingly, 

1. The above-referenced related cases shall be consolidated for all purposes, including 

trial, pursuant to Rule 42(a);

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

related cases;

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

under only the lead case numbers. Future captions should indicate the lead case 

number followed by the remaining member case number as follows:

Lead Case: 1:16-cv-00137-DAD-BAM

Member Case: 1:16-cv-00553-DAD-BAM

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00137-DAD-BAM Document 19 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 2