Castro v. Walmart Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE SOUSA, on behalf of himself Case No. 1:20-cv-00500-DAD-EPG and the Class Members,

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES,

Plaintiff, GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE

CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT, v. AND CONTINUING SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE

WALMART INC.; WAL-MART

ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendants. (ECF No. 27)

MARTHA CASTRO, individually and on Case No. 2:20-cv-00928-DAD-EPG behalf of other individuals similarly situated,

Plaintiff, v.

WALMART INC.,

Defendant.

On April 29, 2021, the parties in George Sousa v. Walmart Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv- 00500-DAD-EPG (“Sousa”) filed a stipulation requesting to consolidate Sousa and Martha Castro v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00928-DAD-EPG (“Castro”) and to file a consolidated amended complaint. (Sousa, ECF No. 27.) Because the stipulation was not signed by counsel for the plaintiff in Castro, the Court entered an order on April 30, 2021, directing the parties in Castro to file a response addressing whether or not they agree that the cases should be consolidated and leave to file a consolidated amended complaint should be granted. (Castro, ECF No. 25.) On May 7, 2021, the parties in Castro filed a joint response stating that they agree that the cases should be consolidated and leave to file a consolidated amended complaint should be granted. (Castro, ECF No. 26.)

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 grant the parties’ stipulation and consolidate these cases.

Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, plaintiffs may file an amended consolidated complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Additionally, to accommodate the Court’s calendar, the Scheduling Conference currently set for June 21, 2021, shall be continued to June 28, 2021.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

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

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 number as follows: Lead Case: 1:20-cv-00500-DAD-EPG

Member Case: 2:20-cv-00928-DAD-EPG

4. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, plaintiffs may file a consolidated amended complaint within seven (7) days of the date of this order. Defendants’ response to the consolidated amended complaint shall be filed and served within fourteen (14) days from the date the consolidated amended complaint is filed; and 5. The Scheduling Conference is CONTINUED from June 21, 2021, to June 28, 2021 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. To participate telephonically, each party is directed to use the following dial-in number and passcode: 1-888-251-2909; passcode 1024453. The parties are also reminded to file a joint scheduling report one full week prior to the conference and email a copy of same, in Word format, to [email protected], for the Judge’s review.

B IT IS SO ORDERED.

14! Dated: _May 10, 2021 [Jee Fey —

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE