Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Two related actions were pending in the Eastern District of California: Andres Perez, et al. v. County of Kern, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00358-CDB, called the AP Action, and E.P., et al. v. County of Kern, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01260-CDB, called the EP Action. The parties stipulated to consolidation and appeared at an October 7, 2026, case management conference. The court then required a joint report addressing efforts to agree on a consolidated third amended complaint in which all plaintiffs would allege cognizable claims against all existing defendants. The report also had to address whether that complaint would moot plaintiffs' joinder motion in the AP Action and defendants' dismissal motion in the EP Action. For good cause, the court extended the report deadline to October 30.
The joint report stated that plaintiffs' counsel provided a proposed consolidated complaint on October 21 and that counsel had met and conferred. If consolidation were ordered, the parties agreed that the AP Action would be the lead case and plaintiffs would file the consolidated complaint by November 6 after adding Myrka Barajas, Carmel Lomeli, and Celestina Horn. They contemplated terminating the joinder and dismissal motions as moot, removing six named defendants, and giving served defendants 30 days to answer. Defense counsel was diligently trying to contact proposed defendant Patricia Rosales and confirm authority to represent her. If that effort failed, plaintiffs would move to add her within 30 days of the order only if they still intended to include her. The parties also requested vacatur of existing scheduling dates and a new conference.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that Rule 42(a) permits consolidation when pending actions involve common questions of law or fact and authorizes other orders avoiding unnecessary cost or delay. It recognized broad discretion over whether and to what extent to consolidate, described consolidation as typically favored, and identified the governing balance: savings of time and effort weighed against inconvenience, delay, or expense. Considering those authorities, the stipulated requests, the joint report's representations, and the pleadings, the court found significant and substantial common issues of fact and law. It further agreed with the parties that consolidation's benefits would serve judicial economy.
The court consolidated both actions for all purposes and designated the Perez action as the lead case for all future filings. It directed the clerk to close the E.P. member case and terminate its motions and deadlines, including defendants' motion to dismiss. Separately, the clerk was directed to administratively terminate plaintiffs' pending joinder motion in the lead case as moot. Plaintiffs must file the proposed consolidated third amended complaint by November 6, 2026, and defendants must answer within 30 days from its service and filing. The court vacated the operative scheduling order's case management dates and deadlines for resetting after the pleadings settle, and vacated the EP Action's November 12 conference. It ordered a Zoom scheduling conference on December 16, 2026, at 9:30 AM in Bakersfield and required a consolidated joint scheduling statement under the court's procedures.
Key Takeaways
- The court consolidated the actions after finding significant and substantial common issues of fact and law and concluding that consolidation would promote judicial economy.
- All future filings must go in the Perez lead case, while the clerk must close the E.P. member case and terminate its motions and deadlines.
- The order treats the two pending motions separately: defendants' EP dismissal motion is terminated with the member case, and plaintiffs' AP joinder motion is administratively terminated as moot.
- Plaintiffs must file the consolidated third amended complaint by November 6, 2026, and defendants have 30 days from its service and filing to answer.
- Existing scheduling dates were vacated, and the parties must appear by Zoom on December 16, 2026, for a conference to reset the consolidated case's schedule.
Why It Matters
The order shows how Rule 42(a) consolidation can implement a negotiated case-management plan without deciding the underlying claims. The court's express findings on common questions and judicial economy support consolidation, while its numbered directives allocate filings to one docket, dispose of the two pending motions procedurally, and establish deadlines for a unified pleading. The stipulated proposals concerning added and removed defendants remain background to that plan; the operative order expressly requires the consolidated complaint and sets the answer period.
The scheduling provisions preserve a structured path forward rather than merely combining dockets. Prior deadlines and the EP conference were vacated, and the new conference and joint statement will address the schedule after the pleadings settle. The order therefore resolves consolidation and immediate case administration, but does not adjudicate the merits of the parties' claims or defenses.