1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CECIL ELMORE, JR., Case No. 2:25-cv-00768-FLA (BFMx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

CONSOLIDATED WITH CECIL

14

ELMORE, JR. V. STARBUCKS

15 STARBUCKS CORPORATION, et al., COFFEE COMPANY, CASE NO. 2:24- CV-10259-FLA (BFMx) 16 Defendants.

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 Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see also In re Adams Apple, 6 | Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (“trial 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 Cecil Elmore, Jr. v. Starbucks Coffee Company, Case 13 | No. 2:24-cv-10259-FLA (BFMx) (“Elmore I’) outweigh any potential for delay, 14 | confusion, and prejudice, as Plaintiff asserts the same or similar claims against the 15 || same Defendant in each action. 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 Elmore I. Responses shall be limited to five (5) pages in length. Failure to 19 || respond timely may result in the consolidation of the actions without further notice 20 | from the court. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 | Dated: June 2, 2025 5 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 26 27 28