1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN FRANKEN, No. 1:18-cv-01687-DC-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING 14 MARK T. ESPER, 1 CONSOLIDATION OF CASES 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 130) 16 17 KEVIN FRANKEN, No. 1:19-cv-01655-DC-CKD 18 Plaintiff, (Doc. No. 69) 19 v. 20 CHRISTINE E. WORMUTH, 21 Defendant. 22 23 Before the court is the parties’ joint stipulation requesting that the court consolidate two 24 employment cases currently pending before the undersigned pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal 25

1 In the court’s order entered on July 14, 2022, in Franken I (Doc. No. 107), the court ordered the 26 caption of this case to be updated to reflect that Christine E. Wormuth is the correct defendant. 27 Because the docket in Franken I still reflects a case name of Franken v. Esper, the court will direct the Clerk of the Court to update the docket to reflect the corrected case name: Franken v. 28 Wormuth. 1 Rules of Civil Procedure: (i) Franken v. Esper, 1:18-cv-01687-DC-CKD (“Franken I”) (Doc. No. 2 130); and (ii) Franken v. Wormuth, 1:19-cv-01655-DC-CKD (“Franken II”) (Doc. No. 69). The 3 court related and reassigned these cases on January 27, 2020. (Franken II, Doc. No. 11.) 4 Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the 5 court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or 6 all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to 7 avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its discretion, the court “weighs the saving of 8 time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it 9 would cause.” Huene v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1984). 10 Here, the court finds that the above-captioned actions involve the same or similar parties, 11 claims, and questions of fact or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and 12 duplication of proceedings. Thus, good cause exists to consolidate these cases. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. The parties’ joint stipulation requesting that the court consolidate cases 1:18-cv- 15 01687-DC-CKD (Doc. No. 130) and 1:19-cv-01655-DC-CKD (Doc. No. 69) is 16 GRANTED; 17 a. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Plaintiff shall file a consolidated 18 complaint by no later than February 7, 2025; and 19 b. Defendant’s response to the consolidated complaint shall be filed by no 20 later than February 28, 2025; 21 2. The above-referenced cases are hereby consolidated for all purposes, including 22 trial, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a); 23 3. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file 24 documents under only the lead case number. The Clerk of the Court is directed to 25 administratively close the member case. Future captions should indicate the lead 26 case number followed by the member case numbers as follows: 27 Lead Case: 1:18-cv-01687-DC-CKD 28 Member Case: 1:19-cv-01655-DC-CKD 1 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket in 1:18-cv-01687-DC-CKD 2 to reflect that, pursuant to the court’s July 14, 2022 order (Doc. No. 107), the 3 correct case name is: Franken v. Wormuth; and 4 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced 5 cases. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 9 | Dated: _ February 4, 2025 RVI Cs Dena Coggins 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28