Patsanza v. Yardley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA BELINDA SAKUPWANYA, Case No. 3:25-cv-05634-TMC Plaintiff, ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES v. RICHARD YARDLEY; JB HUNT TRANSPORT INC; CORPORATIONS XYZ 1-100, Defendants.

MILTON PATSANZA, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD YARDLEY; JB HUNT TRANSPORT INC; CORPORATIONS XYZ 1-100, Defendants.

1 M. P., M. K. P., and M. P., minors, by and through their parents and natural guardians, ‘|| MILTON PATSANZA and BELINDA SAKUPWANYA, ; Plaintiffs, Vv.

RICHARD YARDLEY; JB HUNT TRANSPORT INC; CORPORATIONS XYZ 7 - 1-100, Defendants.

9 This matter comes before the Court during review of 3:25-cv-05634-TMC Sakupwanya v. 10 Yardley et al, 3:25-cv-05633-TMC Patsanza v. Yardley et al, and 3:25-cv-05636-TMC Patsanza et al v. Yardley et al. Having reviewed the complaints and the balance of the records in the above-captioned matters, the Court CONSOLIDATES all three actions for purposes of discovery and pretrial motions.

4 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), a court may consolidate “actions before the court [that] involve a common question of law or fact.” Courts have broad discretion to consolidate cases pending in the same district. Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855—56 (9th Cir. 2016). A court may consolidate actions sua sponte. See Jn re Adams Apple, Inc., ig 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[C]onsolidation is within the broad discretion of the 19 district court . . . and trial courts may consolidate cases sua sponte.”’).

Here, Plaintiffs in each case—Milton Patsanza, Belinda Sakupwanya, and M. P., M. K. P., and M. P., minors, by and through their parents and natural guardians, Milton Patsanza, » Belinda Sakupwanya—are represented by the same attorney and challenge similar actions. All 33 were passengers or operating a car they allege was in a vehicle collision “caused by the negligence of Defendant Richard Yardley.” Dkt. 1-1 § 4.1 (Sakupwanya); Dkt. 1-1 § 4.1 (Patsanza); Dkt. 1-1 ¶ 4.1 (M. P., et al). All Plaintiffs allege that at the time of the incident, Defendant Yardley was operating a commercial vehicle as an independent contractor of Defendant JB Hunt Transportation Inc. Dkt. 1-1 ¶¶ 4.1, 4.4 (Sakupwanya); Dkt. 1-1 ¶¶ 4.1, 4.4 (Patsanza); Dkt. 1-1 ¶¶ 4.1, 4.4 (M. P., et al). All Plaintiffs also seek general damages, medical and other treatment expenses, loss of earnings and/or earnings capacity, additional travel expenses, and loss of consortium for Defendants’ negligence. Dkt. 1-1 ¶¶ 8.1–8.5 (Sakupwanya); Dkt. 1-1 ¶¶ 8.1–8.5 (Patsanza); Dkt. 1-1 ¶¶ 7.1–7.5 (M. P., et al).

8 The cases thus share common questions of law and fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).

9 Moreover, consolidating the cases would serve “judicial economy,” “expedite resolution of the case,” and avoid “inconsistent results.” 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2383 (3d ed., Apr. 2022 Update).

12 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS: 13 • 3:25-cv-05634-TMC Sakupwanya v. Yardley et al, 3:25-cv-05633-TMC Patsanza 14 v. Yardley et al, and 3:25-cv-05636-TMC Patsanza et al v. Yardley et al are 15 CONSOLIDATED for discovery and pretrial motions. The Court will consider 16 whether to consolidate for trial at a later point.

17 • All future filings in this consolidated action must be filed under case number 18 3:25-cv-05636-TMC, with the following caption: Patsanza et al v. Yardley et al, 19 3:25-cv-05636-TMC.

20 • The Clerk is DIRECTED to administratively close 3:25-cv-05634-TMC 21 Sakupwanya v. Yardley et al and 3:25-cv-05633-TMC Patsanza v. Yardley et al. l Dated this 6th day of August, 2025. ; Zag 3 Tiffany-—M. Cartwright United States District Judge 1]