(PS) Conerly v. Veracity Research Company
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CARINA CONERLY, et al. No. 2:19-cv-01021-KJM-KJN PS 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 VERACITY RESEARCH, et al. 14 Defendants. 15 No. 2:19-cv-01113-TLN-EFB PS 16 JAMES CONERLY, et al.
17 Plaintiffs,
ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES,
18 v. VACATING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING
19 VERACITY RESEARCH, et al. COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 20 Defendants. 21 Plaintiffs Carina Conerly and M.T. (proceeding pro se) and Plaintiffs James and Marilyn 22 Conerly (proceeding pro se) each filed an action against Veracity Research Company and Kristy 23 Torain, apparently alleging various claims under California law. The undersigned finds that these 24 two cases should be consolidated for all purposes, given the similarities raised therein.1 25
1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Rule 301(c)(21) of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of California, the magistrate judge has authority to issue non–dispositive rulings for cases where a party is not represented by an attorney (“pro se” cases). Background …