1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE JESUS AVALOS-AVILES, No. 2:22-cv-01257-DAD-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

14 RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., CASES AND CONSOLIDATING CASES 15 Defendant. 16 NICHOLAS J. MCINERNY, No. 2:23-cv-01548-DAD-DB 17 Plaintiff, 18 v. 19

RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

20 Defendant. 21

22 23 Before the court is the unopposed motion to consolidate cases filed by defendant Red 24 Robin International, Inc. (“Red Robin”) on January 9, 2024 in Avalos-Aviles v. Red Robin 25 International, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01257-DAD-DB. (Doc. No. 23.) Specifically, defendant Red 26 Robin seeks to consolidate the following two related cases brought against it in this district: 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 • Avalos-Aviles v. Red Robin International, Inc. (No. 2:22-cv-01257-DAD-DB) (the 2 “Avalos action”); and 3 • Nicholas J. McInerny v. Red Robin International Inc. et al. (No. 2:23-cv-01548- 4 DAD-DB) (the “McInerny action”) 5 (Id.) 6 On January 26, 2024, plaintiff in the Avalos action filed a statement of non-opposition to 7 the pending motion. (Avalos, Doc. No. 24.) On February 2, 2024, the parties in the McInterny 8 action filed a joint status report, in which the parties state that they “met and conferred and 9 plaintiff, through his counsel, agreed he would not oppose consolidating his action with Avalos.” 10 (McInterny, Doc. No. 31 at 3.) On February 5, 2024, the court took the pending motion under 11 submission on the papers. (Avalos, Doc. No. 25.) 12 Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the 13 court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or 14 all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to 15 avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its discretion, the court “weighs the saving of 16 time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it 17 would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, the court finds 18 that the actions involve the same or similar parties, claims, and questions of fact or law, and that 19 consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and duplication of proceedings. Thus, good cause 20 exists to grant defendant’s unopposed motion to consolidate these cases. 21 Accordingly, 22 1. Defendant’s unopposed motion to consolidate cases (Doc. No. 23) is granted; 23 2. The above-referenced cases shall be consolidated for all purposes, including trial, 24 pursuant to Rule 42(a); 25 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced 26 cases; and 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 4. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file 2 documents under only the lead case number. Future captions should indicate the 3 lead case number followed by the member case number as follows: 4 Lead Case: 2:22-cv-01257-DAD-DB 5 Member Case: 2:23-cv-01548-DAD-DB 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. g | Dated: _ February 8, 2024 Dad A. 2, sxe

DALE A. DROZD

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28