In RE: Julie Barrera Martinez and Blanca Esmeralda Chinchilla

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE ALEJANDRO CERVANTES, No. 1:20-cv-00837-DAD

Debtor,

THOMAS O. GILLIS, ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

Appellant No. 1:20-cv-00822-DAD v. No. 1:20-cv-00834-DAD

TRACY HOPE DAVIS, United States

Trustee, MICHAEL H. MEYER, Chapter

13 Trustee,

Appellees.

IN RE JULIE BARRERA MARTINEZ

AND BLANCA ESMERALDA

CHINCHILLA,

Debtors,

THOMAS O. GILLIS,

Appellant v.

TRACY HOPE DAVIS, United States

Trustee, MICHAEL H. MEYER, Chapter

13 Trustee,

Appellees.

IN RE THOMAS O. GILLIS,

Debtor,

THOMAS O. GILLIS,

Appellant v.

TRACY HOPE DAVIS, United States

Trustee, MICHAEL H. MEYER, Chapter

13 Trustee,

Appellees.

On May 4, 2021, appellee Tracy Hope Davis, United States Trustee for Region 17, appellee Michael H. Meyer, Chapter 13 trustee, and appellant Mr. Thomas O. Gillis filed a joint stipulation seeking to consolidate the above-captioned bankruptcy appeal, In re Alejandro Cervantes, No 1:20-cv-00837-DAD, with the two related bankruptcy appeals also assigned to this court, In re Julie Barrera Martinez and Blanca Esmeralda Chinchilla, No. 1:20-cv-00822-DAD, and In re Thomas O. Gillis, No. 1:20-cv-00834-DAD. (Doc. No. 15 at 1–2.) The parties also stipulate that a single brief be filed by each party to the appeals and one optional reply brief by the appellant. (Id. at 2)

Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its discretion, the court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).

Here, the court finds that the above-captioned actions involve the same or similar parties, claims, and questions of fact or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and duplication of proceedings. Thus, good cause exists to consolidate these cases.

Accordingly,

1. The above-referenced cases shall be consolidated for all purposes pursuant to Rule 42(a);

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced cases; and

3. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file documents under only the lead case number. Future captions should indicate the lead case number followed by the member case numbers as follows: Lead Case: 1:20-cv-00837-DAD

Member Cases: 1:20-cv-00822-DAD

1:20-cv-00834-DAD

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ May 5, 2021 al, A “7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE