The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND
VACATING JULY 20, 2012, HEARING DATE
Plaintiffs Henry D. Fajardo, JP Unlimited, LLC, Twins Builders Services Corp., Jesus Lim and Phillip Diep ("Plaintiffs") filed this action on February 14, 2012. Plaintiffs Fajardo, Lim and Diep are directors of JP Unlimited and Twin Builders and they bring this action against New Jersey corporations Metro Funding Corp., MFC Funding, LLC and MFC Real Estate, LLC. Plaintiffs also name public notary Ermitta C. Ross, SJL Commercial Lending and Fidelity National Title as Defendants.
On April 5, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this action with a breach of contract action filed by MFC Twin Builders, LLC, in the District Court of New Jersey. The motion was denied because the New Jersey action was not pending in this District, and especially in light of Plaintiffs' default in the New Jersey action.
On April 27, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action. The matter is currently under submission.
On May 17, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to consolidate this action with 1:12cv0219 AWI SKO, an unlawful detainer action filed in Fresno County Superior Court and removed to this Court by Plaintiffs in this action. The motion was vacated because it was improperly noticed and there was no request to shorten time.
On May 29, 2012, the Court remanded 1:12cv0219 AWI SKO to Fresno County Superior Court and closed the action.
On June 1, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 based on
Plaintiffs' April 5, 2012, motion to consolidate. The motion is set to be heard on June 29, 2012.
On June 5, 2012, notwithstanding the fact that 1:12cv0219 had already been remanded, Plaintiffs filed another motion to consolidate. Plaintiffs again seek to consolidate this action with 1:12cv0219 AWI SKO. Plaintiffs set the hearing for July 6, 2012, though the Court moved it to July 20, 2012.
A hearing on this matter is not necessary. The action with which Plaintiffs seek to consolidate this action is no longer in this Court. Plaintiffs cannot possibly represent to this Court that it should consolidate an action not before it, especially in light of the discussion surrounding the prior motion to consolidate. Under Rule 42(a), a court has broad discretion to consolidate cases pending in that district. See Investors Research Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Cent. Dis. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir.1989). This rule has not changed since April 2012, when the Court first explained it to Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...