Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00737/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00737-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mastronardi International Limited
Counter Defendant
SunSelect Produce (California), Inc.
Counter Claimant

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MASTRONARDI INTERNATIONAL

LIMITED,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SUNSELECT PRODUCE (CALIFORNIA), 

INC., 

Defendant.

SUNSELECT PRODUCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MASTRONARDI INTERNATIONAL

LIMITED,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:18-CV-00737-AWI-JLT

ORDER AFTER TELEPHONIC 

CONFERENCE; ORDER 

CONSOLIDATING THE ACTIONS

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00735 DAD JLT

The Court held an informal, telephonic conference (Doc. 68.) At the conference, counsel 

agreed that the cases are not in a settlement posture but would be more likely to settle after a 

determination as to the significance of the foreign arbitration award. They agreed also that the 

cases should be consolidated for all purposes. 

Case 1:18-cv-00737-AWI-JLT Document 69 Filed 06/15/20 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

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. 

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

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). In these actions, the plaintiffs bring similar 

claims and they present similar questions of fact and law. 

Consolidation would serve 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).

Therefore, the Court ORDERS:

1. The settlement conference will not be reset. However, counsel may jointly request a 

settlement conference when they believe the case is in a settlement posture; 

2. Counsel SHALL submit a stipulation related to their desire to file more than one 

dispositive motion for the Court’s consideration;

3. The cases are ordered consolidated for all purposes, including trial;

4. The parties are instructed that all future filings SHALL use the caption set forth 

above in the earlier-filed cases and SHALL use case number 1:18-CV-00737-AWI-JLT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00737-AWI-JLT Document 69 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 2