Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California
| Decision Date | 08 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-70202,89-70202 |
| Citation | 877 F.2d 777 |
| Parties | INVESTORS RESEARCH COMPANY, et al., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. Southern California Meat Cutters Union and Food Employers Pension Trust Fund, An Express Trust, et al., Real Parties in Interest. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before BROWNING, THOMPSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to order the consolidation of two cases proceeding before different judges in the same district court. The petitioners are defendants in both cases. The cases were randomly assigned to different judges. The plaintiffs in both cases are represented by the same firm and filed a notice of related cases after filing the complaint in the second case. The district court judge assigned to the first case declined without comment to accept transfer of the second case to his calendar. The petitioners moved to consolidate the cases. The district court judge denied the motion, stating in the order that "a related case transfer has been denied, and ... consolidation is not possible when actions are pending before different judges."
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) states: "When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it ... may order all the actions consolidated...." The district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district. See 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 2383 (1971); A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Const. Co., 559 F.2d 928 (4th Cir.1977). Here, the district court has never exercised its discretion on the motion to consolidate. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the district court shall file an answer to the petition for writ of mandamus.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierce v. County of Orange
...actions; we review its decision on consolidation under an abuse of discretion standard. Investor's Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir.1989) ("broad discretion" to consolidate actions pending in the same district); Washington v. Daley, 173 F.......
-
Pierce v. County of Orange
...actions; we review its decision on consolidation under an abuse of discretion standard. Investor's Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir.1989) ("broad discretion" to consolidate actions pending in the same district); Washington v. Daley, 173 F.......
-
Garity v. APWU Nat'l Labor Org.
...courts have “broad discretion” to consolidate 828 F.3d 856 complaints, Inv'rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal. , 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989) ; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) (noting that a court “may ,” but is not required to, consolidate actions if they “invol......
-
United States ex rel. Berglund v. Boeing Co.
...“actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court”); see also Investors Research Co. v. United States District Court, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir.1989) (district court has broad discretion to consolidate cases pending in the same district). In so doing, the tol......
-
Table of Cases
...Radiator Co. , 904 F.2d 9 (7th Cir. 1990), §7:95 Investors Research Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of California , 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989), §7:52 Iron Workers Local No. 272 v. Bowen , 624 F.2d 1255, 1266 (5th Cir. 1980), Form 7-47 Isaac , 224 Fed. Appx. 907, Form ......
-
Motions
...fact usually are pending before different judges). Investors Research Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of California , 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). Typically the consolidated cases are assigned to the judge that was presiding over the first-filed case. If consolidation ......