Opinion
Case No.: 08cv0506 AJB (NLS) Doc. No. 87
08-23-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 53.14 ACRES OF LAND, more or less situated in San Diego County, State of California; et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
The Defendant, the State of California, filed a motion to consolidate, Doc. No. 87, seeking to consolidate the instant action with United State of America v. 127.60 Acres of Land, et al., (hereinafter "127.60 Acre Case"), 06cv1670 AJB (NLS). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2), a court has broad discretion to consolidate cases pending in the same district. See Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir.1989). In considering a motion to consolidate actions, a court, among other things, "weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause."
Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir.1984) (stating the court should consider: whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion are overcome by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of 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.).
The instant motion to consolidate was also filed in the 127.6 Acre Case and was denied by this Court on June 29, 2011 after careful consideration of the appropriate factors. As such, and for the reasons previously set forth by the Court on the record during the June 29, 2011 hearing in the 127.50 Acres Case, Defendant's motion to consolidate is hereby DENIED.
See 127.60 Acre Case, 06cv1670 AJB (NLS), Hearing Transcript, Doc. No. 233, p. 162, lines 14-22, (denying the motion to consolidate based upon the complicated nature, uniqueness of the properties and the likelihood that consolidation would confuse the jury as to what evidence and testimony applied to each property.).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge