1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAMORA WHITFIELD, Case No. 2:24-cv-09312-FLA (BFMx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH DIANNA 14 STINNETT V. EXP REALTY OF EXP REALTY OF CALIFORNIA, 15 INC., CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 2:24-CV-05349-FLA (BFMx) 16 Defendants.

17

18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), a court may consolidate actions involving “a 3 | common question of law or fact” and has “broad discretion under this rule to 4 | consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Jnvs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for 5 | Cent. Dist. of California,

, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see also In re Adams 6 | Apple, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1987) (courts “may consolidate cases sua 7 | sponte’) (citation omitted). “To determine whether to consolidate, a court weighs the 8 | interest in judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and 9 | prejudice caused by consolidation.” Paxonet Commc’ns, Inc. v. TranSwitch Corp., 10 |

(N.D. Cal. 2003) (citation omitted). 11 Here, it appears the benefits of judicial economy and convenience from 12 | consolidating this action with Dianna Stinnett v. EXP Realty of California, Inc., et al., 13 || Case No. 2:24-cv-05349-FLA (BFMx) (“Stinnett Action’) outweighs any potential for 14 | delay, confusion, and prejudice, as each action asserts claims against the same 15 | defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,

, 16 | et seg. 17 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing only 18 | within fourteen (14) days of this Order why this action should not be consolidated 19 | with the Stinnett Action. Responses shall be limited to five (5) pages in length. 20 || Failure to respond may result in consolidation of the actions without further notice. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 || Dated: March 5, 2025 5 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 26 27 28