1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 CHRISTINA GONZALEZ, et al., Case No.: 1:20-cv-00912-NONE-JLT

11 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSOLIDATING THE ACTIONS

12 v.

13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

14 Defendants. Case No. 1:20-cv-01298 NONE JLT 15 _____________________________________

16 JEWELINA GONZALEZ,

17 Plaintiff,

18 v.

19 KYLE NUNEZ, et al.,

20 Defendants.

21

22 All parties agree these cases should be consolidated for all purposes. Gonzalez v. Nunez, 23 Case No.1:20-cv-01298 NONE JLT (Doc. 16 at 12); Gonzalez, et al., v. State of California, Case 24 No. 1:20-cv-00912 NONE JLT (Doc. 20 at 2). 25 The Court may consolidate actions involving a common question of law or fact, and 26 consolidation is proper when it serves the purposes of judicial economy and convenience. 27 Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). The Ninth Circuit explained that the Court “has broad discretion under this rule 28 to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. United States District 1 Court for the Central District of California, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether 2 to consolidate actions, the Court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for 3 delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation. Southwest Marine, Inc., v. Triple A. Mach. 4 Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). In these actions, the plaintiffs bring similar 5 claims and they present similar questions of fact and law. 6 Consolidation would serve the purposes of preserving judicial and party resources and 7 would avoid inconsistent rulings. Because both cases are in their infancy, the Court anticipates 8 little risk of delay, confusion, or prejudice if the matters are consolidated. Consequently, 9 consolidation is appropriate. See Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008). 10 Therefore, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The cases are ordered consolidated for all purposes, including trial; 12 2. The parties are instructed that all future filings SHALL use the caption set forth 13 above in the earlier-filed case and SHALL use case number 1:20-cv-00912-NONE-JLT; 14 3. The scheduling order issued in Gonzalez v. Nunez, Case No.1:20-cv-01298 NONE 15 JLT will apply to the consolidated case. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the 16 scheduling order on counsel in Gonzalez, et al., v. State of California, Case No. 1:20-cv-00912 17 NONE JLT. I after reviewing the order, counsel in Gonzalez, et al., v. State of California, Case 18 No. 1:20-cv-00912 NONE JLT believe the case schedule is unworkable, they may file a 19 stipulation to amend the case schedule. 20 4. The scheduling conference scheduled in Gonzalez, et al., v. State of California, 21 Case No. 1:20-cv-00912 NONE JLT on December 14, 2020, is VACATED. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 Dated: December 7, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26 27 28