1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD RANDOLPH DAYTON, Case Nos. 2:23-cv-02362-CSK 2:24-cv-01170-CSK 12 Plaintiff,

CONSOLIDATION ORDER

13 v. (ECF No. 24 in No. 2:23-cv-02362-CSK) 14 CITY OF FAIRFIELD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is a motion to consolidate Edward Randolph Dayton v. 18 City of Fairfield, et al., No. 2:23-cv-02362-CSK (“Dayton I”) and Edward Randolph 19 Dayton v. City of Fairfield, et al., No. 2:24-cv-01170-CSK (“Dayton II”) filed by 20 Defendants City of Fairfield, Nathan Strickland, Frank Piro, Richard Mroz, Robert 21 Ramirez-Kirgan, Jimmie Williams, and Dan Marshall.1 (ECF No. 24 in No. 2:23-cv- 22 02362-CSK.) Though Plaintiff was provided with multiple opportunities to respond to the 23 motion to consolidate, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or otherwise responded to the 24 motion. See Dayton I Docket; Dayton I, 1/28/2025 Minute Order (ECF No. 25); Dayton I, 25 2/18/2025 Minute Order (ECF No. 27). Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the hearing was 26 vacated and the motion was submitted upon the record. (Dayton I, ECF No. 27.) 27 1 Both actions proceed before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) on the 28 consent of all parties. 1 I. DISCUSSION 2 Defendants move to consolidate Dayton I and Dayton II because the actions 3 share similar factual issues arising out of the City of Fairfield’s alleged removal of 4 Plaintiff’s mobile home, trailer, and belongings; common issues of law with similar or 5 identical causes of action against the City of Fairfield and almost all the same individual 6 City of Fairfield law enforcement personnel; and consolidation would conserve judicial 7 resources and would not prejudice Plaintiff. See Defs. Mot. Pursuant to Local Rule 8 230(c), Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition is construed as a non-opposition to 9 Defendants’ motion to consolidate. 10 Where actions in the same district “involve a common question of law or fact,” 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a district court to: “(1) join for hearing or trial 12 any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any 13 other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “The district 14 court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same 15 district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 16 777 (9th Cir. 1989). The district court also has “inherent power to control their dockets.” 17 See United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008). 18 The Court grants Defendants’ unopposed motion to consolidate the Dayton I and 19 Dayton II actions for all purposes, including trial. The Dayton I and Dayton II actions 20 meet the standard of Rule 42(a) where both actions involve several common questions 21 of law and fact, including similar claims based on similar facts brought by the same 22 plaintiff against almost all the same defendants—the City of Fairfield and individual City 23 of Fairfield law enforcement personnel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); Howse v. Chiquita 24 Canyon, LLC, --- F. Supp. 3d. ----, 2024 WL 4828705, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2024). 25 The Court further finds that consolidation will conserve limited judicial resources and the 26 resources of all parties. Plaintiff filed the two actions just 4.5 months apart. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 The Dayton II Pretrial Scheduling Order will govern this consolidated action. 2 (Dayton II, ECF No. 14.) The schedule summary is provided again here:2 3 4 Event Deadline Joint Mid-Discovery Statement June 5, 2025 5 Non-Expert Discovery October 17, 2025 6 Completion 7 Initial Expert Disclosures December 16, 2025 8 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures January 15, 2026 Expert Discovery Completion February 17, 2026 9 10 Dispositive Motions Filed By April 20, 2026 Dispositive Motions Heard By June 16, 2026 11 Joint Pretrial Statement Filed By 21 days before the FPTC 12 Motions In Limine Filed By 14 days before the FPTC 13 Final Pretrial Conference September 15, 2026 14 (“FPTC”) and Motions In Limine Hearing 15 Jury Trial (1-2 days) October 19-20, 2026 16 The Court notes that the pleadings are closed and there is no need for a 17 consolidated master complaint. In addition, no such request has been made. 18

II. CONCLUSION

19 In conclusion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Defendants’ unopposed motion to consolidate (Dayton v. City of Fairfield, 21 et al., No. 2:23-cv-02362-CSK, ECF No. 24) is GRANTED; 22 2. The Dayton v. City of Fairfield, et al., No. 2:23-cv-02362-CSK, and Dayton 23 v. City of Fairfield, et al., No. 2:24-cv-01170-CSK, actions are consolidated for all 24 purposes, including trial; 25 3. Dayton v. City of Fairfield, et al., No. 2:24-cv-01170-CSK, will be the lead 26

27 2 Because the deadline for exchanging Initial Disclosures has already passed, this deadline is not included in this schedule summary. (See Dayton II, ECF No. 14.) 28 1 | case. The parties are directed to file all future pleadings in the lead case only. 2 4. The Clerk is directed to file a copy of the First Amended Complaint (ECF 3 || No. 4), Answer (ECF No. 11), assignment orders (ECF Nos. 14 and 19), and motion to 4 || consolidate documents (ECF Nos. 24-27) from member case, Dayton v. City of Fairfield, 5 | et al., No. 2:23-cv-02362-CSK, in lead case Dayton v. City of Fairfield, et al., No. 2:24- 6 | cv-01170-CSK. 7 5. The Clerk is directed to administratively close member case, Dayton v. City 8 || of Fairfield, et al., No. 2:23-cv-02362-CSK; and 9 6. The November 25, 2024 Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 14) in lead 10 || case Dayton v. City of Fairfield, et al., No. 2:24-cv-01170-CSK, will govern this 11 | consolidated action. 12 13 44 Dated: March 24, 2025 C i S$ 45 CHI SOO KIM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28