Cecil Elmore Jr v. Starbucks Coffee Company

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CECIL ELMORE, JR., Case No. 2:24-cv-10259-FLA (BFMx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH CECIL ELMORE, JR. V. STARBUCKS STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY, CORPORATION, CASE NO. 2:25-CV- 00768-FLA (BFMx) 16 Defendant.

1 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), a court may consolidate actions involving “a | common question of law or fact” and has “broad discretion under this rule to | consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Jnvs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for | Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see also In re Adams Apple, | Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (“trial courts may consolidate cases sua | sponte”) (citation omitted). “To determine whether to consolidate, a court weighs the | interest in judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and | prejudice caused by consolidation.” Paxonet Commc’ns, Inc. v. TranSwitch Corp., | 303 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citation omitted).

11 Here, it appears the benefits of judicial economy and convenience from | consolidating this action with Cecil Elmore, Jr. vy. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. | 2:25-cv-00768-FLA (BFMx) (“E/more IP’) outweigh any potential for delay, | confusion, and prejudice, as Plaintiff asserts the same or similar claims against the || same Defendant in each action.

16 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing only | within fourteen (14) days of this Order why this action should not be consolidated | with Elmore I. Responses shall be limited to five (5) pages in length. Failure to || respond timely may result in the consolidation of the actions without further notice | from the court.

22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 | Dated: May 27, 2025 5 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge