1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 GLADIS ESTRADA, et al., 4 3:20-CV-0579-MMD-CLB Plaintiff(s), 5 v. ORDER 6 CITY OF RENO,

7 Defendant. 8 9 And related cases: 10 CLEOUS: 3:20-CV-0585-MMD-CLB 11 NOVAK: 3:20-CV-0586-MMD-CLB 12 SIMINOE: 3:20-CV-0595-MMD-CLB 13 BERNS: 3:20-CV-0649-MMD-CLB 14 BUSHY: 3:20-CV-0650-MMD-CLB 15 LOFFER: 3:20-CV-0711-MMD-CLB 16 DEKKER: 3:20-CV-0712-MMD-CLB 17 NAUMAN: 3:20-CV-0713-MMD-CLB 18 SCHUTTE: 3:20-CV-0714-MMD-CLB 19 SPENCER: 3:20-CV-0715-MMD-CLB 20 LLAMAS-AGUILAR: 3:21-CV-0011-MMD-CLB CONLIN: 3:21-CV-0012-MMD-CLB 21 DONOHUE: 3:21-CV-0014-MMD-CLB 22 DUTCHER: 3:21-CV-0015-MMD-CLB 23 ASSEM. OF GOD: 3:21-CV-0016-MMD-CLB 24 NEVAREZ: 3:21-CV-0017-MMD-CLB 25 PEARSON: 3:21-CV-0021-MMD-CLB 26 ROSS: 3:21-CV-0022-MMD-CLB 27 1 LONG: 3:21-CV-0023-MMD-CLB 2 LAUNER: 3:21-CV-0026-MMD-CLB 3 POOL: 3:21-CV-0029-MMD-CLB 4 HUGHETT: 3:21-CV-0036-MMD-CLB SOTELO: 3:21-CV-0037-MMD-CLB 5 6 BERRY: 3:21-CV-0038-MMD-CLB HALL: 3:21-CV-0040-MMD-CLB 7

8 9 The lawsuits identified in Attachment “1” are pending before this court and have been 10 assigned to the Honorable Miranda M. Du and the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Each case 11 arises from the flooding of Swan Lake, located in Lemmon Valley, Reno, Nevada in 2017. In 12 each case, individual homeowners allege federal claims arising from the flood in relation to 13 their homes and property. Although each lawsuit involves separate homeowners and 14 individual pieces of real property, there are significant overlapping factual and legal issues in 15 each case. 16 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), where actions before the court involve “a common 17 question of law or fact” the court may consolidate the actions, in whole or in part. This rule 18 affords courts “broad discretion” to consolidate cases pending in the same district either on 19 a motion by a party or sua sponte. In re Adams Apple, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 20 1987). In deciding whether consolidation is appropriate, the Court considers a number of 21 factors including “judicial economy, whether consolidation would expedite resolution of the 22 case, whether separate cases may yield inconsistent results, and the potential prejudice to 23 a party opposing consolidation.” First Mercury Ins. Co. v. SQI, Inc.,

, at *2 24 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 6, 2014) (citing 8 Moore's Federal Practice–Civil § 42.10[4–5]). 25 Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS the following: 26 1. Pretrial Consolidation. Having considered the above factors, this Court 27 concludes that consolidation of the cases identified in Attachment “1” is appropriate for the 1 purpose of discovery and pretrial matters that involve the same legal and factual issues in 2 each case. 1 Therefore, for those issues involved in each case that involve the same facts 3 and/or legal issues as all other cases, those matters will be consolidated under one master 4 case number and name. This order, however, does not constitute a determination that these 5 actions should be consolidated for trial, nor does it have the effect of making any entity a 6 party to an action in which it has not been joined and served in accordance with the Federal 7 Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, the court does not consolidate these matters for any issues 8 that are unique or individual to each piece of real property or the individual homeowners. 9 2. Master Docket and Case Caption. The court orders the clerk to open and 10 maintain a master docket and case file under the style “IN RE: 2017 LEMMON VALLEY 11 FLOOD,” master file number 3:21-cv-00093-MMD-CLB to be used for all filings for the 12 master case related to the Lemmon Valley Flood Consolidated Issues. All orders, pleadings, 13 motions and other documents will, when filed and docketed in the master file, be deemed 14 filed and docketed in each other case. Finally, all orders, pleadings, motions, and other 15 documents shall use the following caption: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 1 This consolidation does not include King v. City of Reno, 3:21-cv-00024-MMD-WGC, which involves additional defendant, Washoe County. Washoe County filed a motion to sever from the consolidated matters, 26 which has not been ruled on. Therefore, nothing in this order alters or amends any due dates or obligations related to the King case that are currently pending. 27 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 IN RE: 2017 LEMMON VALLEY FLOOD Case No. 3:21-cv-00093-MMD-CLB 5 This document relates to: [Title of Document] 6 [“All Actions”] 7 or 8

9 [if the document relates to less than all of the consolidated cases, specify by title 10 and case number of the individual applicable case(s) the document is 11 related to]

12

13

14

15 When a document filed pertains to all actions, the phrase “All Actions” shall appear 16 immediately after the phrase “This document pertains to:”. When a document pertains to 17 only some, but not all, of the actions, the document shall list, immediately after the phrase, 18 “This document relates to:”, the title and case number for each individual action to which the 19 document applies. 20 3. Later Filed Cases. The terms of this order related to the consolidation for 21 purposes of discovery and pretrial matters in cases that involve claims related to the 2017 22 Lemmon Valley Flood shall only to the cases identified by this order and will only apply to 23 subsequently filed cases involving the same facts and circumstances upon entry of a 24 separate order by the court specifically consolidating those action(s) with the Master Docket 25 and Case Caption. 26

27 1 4. Motions to Dismiss. Currently pending in all, but one, of the consolidated cases 2 listed in Attachment “1” are motions to dismiss filed by the defendants. 3 Based on the representations of counsel at the April 23, 2021 hearing, the motions 4 to dismiss are not identical as to all consolidated cases. Specifically, in a subset of the cases, 5 the defendants assert arguments specific to certain plaintiffs’ who were not identified class 6 members in the underlying state court class action. As such, there are legal issues in the 7 motions to dismiss that are applicable to all of the consolidated cases. However, there are 8 separate arguments related only to a sub-set of the consolidated cases involving plaintiffs 9 who were not members of the underlying class action. 10 Based on these representations, the court denies each of the motions to dismiss 11 without prejudice and orders the defendants to refile the motions to dismiss under the Master 12 Docket and Case Caption as follows. Specifically, the court orders the defendants leave to 13 file 2 master motions to dismiss in the Master Docket and Case Caption as follows: (1) one 14 motion to dismiss asserting legal arguments applicable to all the consolidated cases; and 15 (2) one motion to dismiss asserting arguments specific to only those plaintiffs who were not 16 members of the underlying class action. The briefing schedules for each motion are set as 17 follows: 18 A. Motion to Dismiss Applicable to ALL Cases: 19 Defendants are ordered to re-file one master motion to dismiss asserting legal 20 arguments that are applicable to all cases within 14 days of the date of this order, and by no 21 later than March 9, 2021.2 Plaintiffs must file one master opposition to that motion to dismiss 22 within 30 days after the motion is filed. Defendants must file their reply in support of that 23 motion to dismiss 30 days after the opposition is filed. 24 25

26 2 The caption for this master motion to dismiss, must state as follows: “This document applies to: ALL CONSOLIDATED CASES”. 27 1 B. Motion to Dismiss re: Arguments Specific to Non-Class Member Plaintiffs: 2 Defendants are ordered to re-file one additional motion to dismiss that addresses 3 || arguments specific to only the non-class member plaintiffs within 30 days of this order, and 4 || by no later than March 25, 2021.° Plaintiffs must file one master opposition to that motion 5 || to dismiss within 30 days after the motion is filed. Defendants must file their reply in support 6 || of that master motion to dismiss within 30 days after the opposition is filed. 7 5. Stay of Discovery. Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated February 22, 2021, 8 || discovery is currently stayed in all of the consolidated actions until the Case Management 9 || Conference scheduled for April 30, 2021 to allow the parties time to explore possible 10 || settlement. 11 6. April 30, 2021 Case Management Conference. As previously ordered, a case 12 ||management conference will be held for the purposes specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and 13 || will be subject to the sanctions prescribed in Rule 16(f). By no later than April 8, 2021, the 14 || parties are ordered to file a “joint case management” report that details: (1) the status of the 15 || outstanding cases; (2) the status settlement negotiations; and (3) proposed scheduling order 16 || and discovery plan deadlines for the court’s consideration. 17 The court will issue an agenda approximately three (3) days prior to the conference 18 || which will include the above topics and may include additional topics related to discovery 19 || and case administration. Counsel are encouraged to advise the Court of any items that they 20 || request be included to the agenda by sending an email to the undersigned via her courtroom 21 || deputy, Lisa Mann, no later than one-week be eth conference.** 22 || DATED: February 23, 2021. Se L a 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 3 The caption for this master motion to dismiss, must state as follows: “This document applies to th 25 || following cases: [list each case name and number applicable]”. 26 || complex itgaion (rourth Editon) which may provide hel guidance and information onthe discovery sues and pret 57 ||maters that may arise in this case given its scope and complexity.

1 Attachment “1” – Case List 2 3 Case Name Case Number 4 5 1 Estrada v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-579-MMD-CLB 6 2 Cleous v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-585-MMD-CLB 7 8 3 Novak v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-586-MMD-CLB 9 4 Siminoe v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-595-MMD-CLB 10 11 5 BERNS v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-649-MMD-CLB 12 6 Bushey v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-650-MMD-CLB 13 14 7 Loffer v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-711-MMD-CLB 15 8 Dekker v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-712-MMD-CLB 16 17 9 Nauman v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-713-MMD-CLB 18 10 Schutte v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-714-MMD-CLB 19 20 11 Spencer v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-715-MMD-CLB 21 12 Llamas-Aguilar v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-11-MMD-CLB 22 23 13 Conlin v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-12-MMD-CLB 24 14 Donohoe v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-14-MMD-CLB 25 26 15 Dutcher v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-15-MMD-CLB 27 1 16 New Life Assembly Church v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-16-MMD-CLB 2 17 Nevarez v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-17-MMD-CLB 3 4 18 Pearson v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-21-MMD-CLB 5 6 19 Ross v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-22-MMD-CLB 7 20 Long v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-23-MMD-CLB 8 9 21 Launer v. City of reno 3:21-cv-26-MMD-CLB 10 22 Pool v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-29-MMD-CLB 11 12 23 Hughett v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-36-MMD-CLB 13 24 Sotelo v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-37-MMD-CLB 14 15 25 Berry v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-38-MMD-CLB 16 26 Hall v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-40-MMD-CLB 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27