Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chris Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 26, 2012

CHRIS KOHLER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BED BATH & BEYOND OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, ET AL. DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

ORDER Re: Defendant's Motion for Order Consolidating Actions for Trial Purposes or, in the Alternative, for Order Continuing Trial Date [45]

On June 20, 2012, Defendant Bed Bath & Beyond of California, LLC's ("Defendant") Motion for Order Consolidating Actions for Trial Purposes or, in the Alternative, for Order Continuing Trial Date [45] came on for regular calendar before the Court. Having reviewed all arguments and papers pertaining to this Motion, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:

Defendant Bed Bath & Beyond of California, LLC's Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff Chris Kohler ("Plaintiff") currently has two Actions pending in the Central District of California against Defendant: this Action (the "Earlier Filed Action," filed May 24, 2011, and assigned to Judge Ronald S.W. Lew) and a suit captioned Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond, LLC, et. al, Case No. 2:11-cv-04554-DMG-MAN (the "Later Filed Action," filed May 26, 2011, and assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee). Defendant has not met its burden of showing that consolidation of the two Actions is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The two Actions have been assigned to two different judges and pertain to distinct retail stores in different geographical locations (i.e., Lake Elsinore, California and Riverside, California). In addition, the conditions allegedly present at Defendant's store locations constitute distinct issues in their own right, and warrant separate evidence. Consequently, the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation outweighs Defendant's need to consolidate the two Actions.

With regard to Defendant's alternative Motion for Order Continuing Trial Date, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion. Defendant's request for continuance is premature considering that trial set for both Actions is not until October 16, 2012.

Therefore, Defendant's Motion for Order Consolidating Actions for Trial Purposes or, in the Alternative, for Order Continuing Trial Date is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120626

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.