1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STUART EGGERTSEN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00236-FLA (KSx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

CONSOLIDATED WITH GEORGE

14

JENETOPULOS, ET AL., V. HENRIK

15 HENRIK FISKER, FISKER, ET AL., 2:24-CV-09760-FLA (KSX) 16 Defendant.

17

18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), a court may consolidate actions involving “a 3 | common question of law or fact” and has “broad discretion under this rule to 4 | consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Jnvs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for 5 | Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see also In re Adams 6 | Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (courts “may consolidate cases sua 7 | sponte’) (citation omitted). “To determine whether to consolidate, a court weighs the 8 | interest in judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and 9 | prejudice caused by consolidation.” Paxonet Commc’ns, Inc. v. TranSwitch Corp., 10 | 303 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citation omitted). 11 Here, it appears the benefits of judicial economy and convenience from 12 | consolidating this action with George Jenetopulos, et al., v. Henrik Fisker, et al., Case 13 | No. 2:24-cv-09760-FLA (KSx) (“Jenetopulos Action”) outweighs any potential for 14 | delay, confusion, and prejudice, as each action asserts the same claims against similar 15 | defendants. 16 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing only 17 | within fourteen (14) days of this Order why this action should not be consolidated 18 || with the Jenetopulos Action. Responses shall be limited to five (5) pages in length. 19 | Failure to respond may result in consolidation of the actions without further notice. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 | Dated: March 21, 2025 04 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 25 26 27 28