UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-6464-DMG (PJWx) Date November 23, 2020 CV 20-6465-DMG (PJWx)

Title Tynesha Dixon v. City of Los Angeles, et al. Page 1 of 1 Salea Ladonya Irvin v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS — ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASES SHOULD

NOT BE CONSOLIDATED

On July 20, 2020, Plaintiff Tynesha Dixon filed a Complaint against the City of Los Angeles and 11 individual Defendants asserting five claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and six state law claims. [Dixon Doc. #1.] The same day, Plaintiff Salea Ladonya Irvin filed a Complaint against the same Defendants, asserting the same claims, and based on the same factual allegations. [Irvin Doc. # 1.] Defendants filed six separate similar, if not identical, Answers in each case.

Dixon, Irvin, and Defendants are each ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than December 3, 2020 why the two cases should not be consolidated under the caption, Tynesha Dixon, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 20-6464 DMG (PJWx). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) (A court may consolidate actions pending before it if they “involve a common question of law or fact.”); see also Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008) (district courts have broad discretion whether or not to consolidate actions) (citing Invrs. Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989)); Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984) (in determining whether consolidation is appropriate, courts weigh “the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.”). Failure to file a response by that date will be deemed consent to consolidation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.