UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-07389 DMG (JCx) Date April 20, 2021 CV 20-11633 DMG (JCx) 

Title Monique Bunn v. Damon Anthony Dash, et al. Page 1 of 1 Monique Bunn v. Damon Anthony Dash, 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 December 26, 2019, Plaintiff Monique Bunn filed an action against Defendants Damon Anthony Dash, Damon Dash Studios, Poppington LLC, and Raquel Horn. [No. CV 20-7389 DMG (JCx) (“First Action”) Doc. # 1.] On December 16, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. [First Action Doc. # 109]. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a new lawsuit against substantially the same Defendants on December 24, 2020.1 [No. CV 20-11633 DMG (JCx) (“Second Action”) Doc. # 1.] On December 30, 2020, the Second Action was transferred to this Court due to it arising from the same or closely related transactions, happenings or events as the First Action. [Second Action Doc. # 12.]

The parties are each ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than April 27, 2021 why the two cases should not be consolidated in accordance with the schedule implemented in the First Action. 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,

(9th Cir. 2008) (district courts have broad discretion whether or not to consolidate actions) (citing Investor’s Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.,

, 777 (9th Cir. 1989)); Huene v. United States,

(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.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 The Second Action lists Poppington LLC as a dba of “Dame Dash Studios” and also includes “The Dash Group LLC” as a named Defendant.