“District 21 courts have the inherent power to control their dockets….”
How later courts described this case
- “District 21 courts have the inherent power to control their dockets….”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 VIRGINIA M LAMBRIX, et al., Case No. 23-cv-01145-TLT
10 Plaintiffs,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
11 v. REGARDING CONSOLIDATION OF
ACTIONS
12 TESLA, INC.,
Defendant.
13
14 ROBERT ORENDAIN, Case No. 23-cv-01157-TLT
Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
17 TESLA, INC.,
Defendant.
18
Case No. 23-cv-01496-TLT
19 SEAN BOSE,
Plaintiff,
20
v.
21
22 TESLA, INC.,,
Defendant.
23
24 PATRICK DOYLE, Case No. 23-cv-01543-TLT
25 Plaintiff,
v.
26
27 TESLA, INC.,
1 PHILOMENA FOCHWANG NANA- Case No. 23-cv-02035-TLT
ANYANGWE,
2
Plaintiff,
3
v.
4
TESLA, INC.,
5 Defendant.
6
Case No. 23-cv-02352-TLT
ANDREW RAGONE,
7
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
TESLA, INC.,
10
Defendant.
11
12
13 The Court has issued orders relating the six above-captioned cases. See ECF Nos. 21, 35,
14 41, and 45. On June 8, 2023, the parties filed a joint case management conference statement in
15 which Plaintiffs indicate they intend to file a motion to consolidate the cases and Defendant states
16 it “does not oppose consolidate[ion] of the remaining related matters.” See ECF No. 51. As such,
17 it appears no party objects to consolidating the above cases.
18 A court has inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with
19 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299
20 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“District
21 courts have the inherent power to control their dockets….”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
22 42(a) provides: “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court
23 may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the
24 actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
25 District courts have “broad discretion under [Rule 42(a)] to consolidate cases pending in
26 the same district.” Invs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th
27 Cir. 1989). In deciding whether to consolidate, a court should balance the interest of judicial
1 States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). A district court also has broad discretion to determine
2 || to what extent consolidation is appropriate, Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855-
3 56 (9th Cir. 2016), and “the law is clear that an act of consolidation does not affect any of the
4 substantive rights of the parties.” J.G. Link & Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 470 F.2d 1133, 1138
5 || (9th Cir. 1972).
6 Here, Plaintiffs in all six cases bring claims against Defendant under the Sherman Act, 15
7 U.S.C. § 2 for alleged (1) Monopolization of the Tesla Repair Services Market, (2) Attempted
8 Monopolization of the Tesla Repair Services Market, and (3) Attempted Monopolization of the
9 Tesla-Compatible Parts Market. Plaintiffs in the Orendain, Doyle, Nana-Anyangwe, and Ragone
10 || bring an additional claim under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 for alleged Attempted
11 Monopolization of the Tesla-Compatible Parts Market. Finally, Plaintiffs in every case except
12 || Doyle also bring claims under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 for alleged Unlawful Tying and the
5 13 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2302 for alleged Prohibited Warranty Tying. As
14 such, it appears that there are common questions of law or fact with respect to the above cases.
3 15 Given the similarity between these related cases, the parties are ORDERED to show cause
16 || why the above six actions should not be consolidated. The parties shall file either a joint
3 17 stipulation regarding consolidation or response to this order to show cause, not to exceed five
18 || pages, by June 23, 2023. In any such joint stipulation or response, the parties shall include a joint
19 || proposed schedule through trial. In filing their joint case management statement, the parties failed
20 || to meet and confer and provide the Court with any suggested dates.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 Dated: June 9, 2023
23
Sk
25 TRINA IMPSON
United States District Judge
26
27
28