Miller, et al. v. City of Fresno, et al., No. 1:2009cv00304 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION Granting In Part Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Actions 22 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/6/09. (Gil-Garcia, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JAMES LEWIS, 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 13 CITY OF FRESNO, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-F-08-1062 OWW/GSA No. CV-F-09-304 LJO/SMS MEMORANDUM DECISION GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS (Docs. 29 & 22) 17 Plaintiff moves to consolidate the Miller, et al. v. City of 18 Fresno, et al., No. CV-F-09-304 LJO/SMS with this action pursuant 19 to Rule 42(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 20 The motion to consolidate is opposed by Defendants. 21 A. 22 Rule 42 provides: 23 24 25 Governing Standards. (a) Consolidation. If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; 26 1 1 (2) consolidate the actions; or 2 (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. 3 4 5 6 7 (b) Separate Trials. For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims. When ordering a separate trial, the court must preserve any federal right to a jury trial. 8 Once a common question has been established, consolidation is 9 within the broad discretion of the district court. Paxonet 10 Communs., Inc. v. Transwitch Corp., 303 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1028-1029 11 (N.D.Cal.2003). 12 of law or fact, consolidation may be inappropriate where 13 individual issues predominate. 14 Litig., 182 F.R.D. 441, 447 (D.N.J.1998). 15 to consolidate, the interest of judicial convenience is weighed 16 against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused 17 by consolidation. Id. 18 stages of discovery usually weigh against consolidation. 19 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ยง 2383 (2006). 20 As explained in Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 21 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 920 (1990): 22 23 But even where cases involve some common issues See In re Consol. Parlodel To determine whether Factors such as differing trial dates or Considerations of convenience and economy must yield to a paramount concern for a fair and impartial trial ... When exercising its discretion, the court must consider: 24 25 26 [W]hether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion [are] overcome by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of 2 9 common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses, and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense of all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives. 1 2 3 4 5 ... When considering consolidation, a court should also note that the risks of prejudice and confusion may be reduced by the use of cautionary instructions to the jury and verdict sheets outlining the claims of each plaintiff. 6 7 8 9 The moving party bears the burden of showing consolidation is 10 appropriate. In re Consol. Parlodel Litig., 182 F.R.D. at 447. 11 B. Merits of Motion. 12 Plaintiffs assert that all of them have alleged, in one way 13 or another, a hostile work environment in that each has been 14 subjected to and heard insensitive remarks, stereotypical 15 comments and disparate treatment on the basis of race and/or 16 color, that Defendant Dyer was aware of the racial motivations of 17 the individual defendants and the resulting disparate impact upon 18 Plaintiffs, but failed and refused to correct such conduct, 19 thereby ratifying it: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The thread that runs throughout the claims of the four Plaintiffs is that of racial discrimination and retaliation. This is true not only of the legal theories pled but the factual contentions. Each Plaintiff has put forth facts evincing circumstances in which he personally was involved and a victim of such discrimination. Additionally, each Plaintiff is contending that the practices of the Police Department under the reign of Chief Dyer and the work place environment is racially hostile to African Americans. 3 1 2 3 4 Further, it has been alleged that under Chief Dyer, opportunities for hiring, training, retention and promotion for African Americans are less advantageous and that disciplinary actions are likewise more onerous or likely to result in discipline or more severe discipline than other similarly situated officers who are not African-American. 5 Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a 6 common question of law or fact. Although conceding that all of 7 the Plaintiffs allege racial discrimination in employment, 8 Plaintiff Lewis s claim of discrimination is also based on his 9 sex, marital status and union activity. Defendants further 10 contend that none of the individual claims have any factual 11 overlap and that not all Defendants are sued in connection with 12 each of the claims (other than Defendant Dyer). To the contrary, 13 all claims concern the alleged racial discrimination, hostile 14 work environment, and adverse employment actions taken against 15 all Plaintiffs, who are African-American police officers. 16 Defendants cite Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348 (9th 17 Cir.1997), a case involving joinder under Rule 20, Federal Rules 18 of Civil Procedure, in which an action was brought for a writ of 19 mandamus to compel INS officials to adjudicate 49 pending 20 petitions or applications. In affirming the District Court s 21 conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements 22 for joinder, the Ninth Circuit stated in pertinent part: 23 24 25 26 [A]lthough Plaintiffs claims are all brought under the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, the mere fact that all Plaintiffs claims arise under the same general law does not necessarily establish a common question of law or fact. Clearly, 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 each Plaintiff s claim is discrete, and involves different legal issues, standards, and procedures. Indeed, even if Plaintiffs claims were not severed, the Court would still have to give each claim individualized attention. Therefore, the claims do not involve common questions of law or fact. 130 F.3d at 1351. Defendants further argue that, even if Plaintiffs establish 7 a common question of law or fact, consolidation should be denied. 8 Defendants concede that consolidation does not create a risk of 9 delaying the trial because both actions are at a similar 10 procedural stage, i.e., no scheduling conference has taken place 11 in either case. 12 to Defendants and confusion of the jury weigh against 13 consolidation: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 However, Defendants argue, the risk of prejudice The joining together of disparate claims of discrimination in the Lewis case with the claims of racial discrimination in the Miller Action will require the City to defend four factually distinct claims together before the same jury. In that event, even if one or more of the individual Plaintiffs were unable to meet their burden of proof in support of their individual claims, a jury could be influenced by the mere numerosity of the claims presented at trial. In such circumstances, although the jury would be instructed to examine each claim individually, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to separate each claim from Plaintiffs repetitive exhortions that the City and individual defendants practice and/or condone racial discrimination. In a similar sense, a finding of liability in one case could be unfairly extrapolated into adverse findings in all cases. Such a result would be extremely prejudicial to the City, as well as to the seventeen ... individually named Defendants, each of whom face personal exposure and punitive damages. 5 1 Defendants argue that denial of consolidation will not expose the 2 parties in the two actions to inconsistent adjudications: Each of the four ... cases is fact specific, and will succeed or fail upon the strengths or weakness of the divergent facts presented in each specific case. 3 4 5 Defendants further argue that the burden on the parties, 6 witnesses and available judicial resources weigh against 7 consolidation: 8 At best, Plaintiffs diverse claims present a common allegation of racial discrimination. However, the claims arise in completely distinct factual situations, involve uniquely different groups of alleged conspirators, and completely different percipient witnesses. With the exception of Chief Dyer, the only overlap between the sixteen ... remaining individual defendants involve the naming of Deputy Chief Robert Nevarez and Captain Greg Garner in two ... of the four claims. 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendants contend that consolidation will involve the seventeen 15 individual defendants to attend a protracted trial involving four 16 separate claims in which the majority of defendants play only a 17 small role in a single claim. Any suggestion that each 18 individual defendant need not attend the entire trial is, 19 Defendants contend, untenable in a case which asserts that the 20 individual defendants engaged in morally reprehensible conduct 21 and which seeks to impose punitive damages against the 22 individual. Defendants argue that, except for the time saved in 23 picking a jury, consolidation of the two actions will not enhance 24 court efficiency and will substantially complicate and expand the 25 trial. 26 6 1 Plaintiff s motion to consolidate is GRANTED IN PART. The 2 actions involve essentially common questions of law and, to some 3 extent, common questions of fact regarding operation and command 4 of the Fresno Police Department, its policies and practices, and 5 how African-American officers are treated in the workforce. 6 Judicial economy and conservation of the parties resources weigh 7 heavily in favor of consolidation for purposes of discovery in 8 both cases, for case management, and non-dispositive and 9 dispositive motions. No prejudice to Defendants results from 10 this partial consolidation. Any privacy concerns relative to 11 internal affairs investigations of individual parties may be 12 addressed by appropriate protective orders. 13 and/or to what extent these cases will be consolidated for trial 14 is deferred. 15 appear at the Scheduling Conference set for September 4, 2009 at 16 8:15 a.m. in Courtroom 3. A decision whether All parties to these consolidated actions shall These cases are ordered partially consolidated for the 17 18 purposes described above, including dispositive motions. 19 juncture the parties and the Court will be able to ascertain and 20 evaluate the merits of advantages and disadvantages of discovery. IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: 668554 July 6, 2009 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 7 At that
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
