# Wonderful Nurseries LLC v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

> District Court, E.D. California · July 1, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11088172

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** July 1, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11088172

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 WONDERFUL NURSERIES LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01601-KES-CDB
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER CONSOLIDATING RELATED
CASES
14 AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
WESTERN GROWERS ASSOCIATION No. 1:25-cv-00577-KES-CDB
17 and OLIVE HILL GREENHOUSES, INC,

18 Plaintiffs,

19 v.
20 AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, et al.,
21
Defendants.
22

23
24 On May 20, 2025, the Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) why the above
25 captioned cases should not be consolidated. All parties in each case have responded to the OSC,
26 and no party opposes consolidation. (No. 24-cv-01601, Docs. 55–58; No. 25-cv-00577, Docs.
27 37–39.)
28 ///
1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that “[i]f actions before the court involve a
2 common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at
3 issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary
4 cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The purpose of Rule 42 “is to give the district court broad
5 discretion to decide how cases on its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may
6 be dispatched with expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties.” 9A Charles
7 Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2381 (3d ed. April 2025). A
8 court exercising its “broad discretion” under Rule 42, “weighs the saving of time and effort
9 consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.”
10 Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir.), on reh’g, 753 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1984).
11 Here, the two cases present virtually identical constitutional challenges to what are known
12 as the mandatory mediation and conciliation (“MMC”) provisions of the California Agricultural
13 Labor Relations Act (“ALRA”), Labor Code section 1164 et seq. The complaint filed by
14 Wonderful Nurseries LLC and the complaint filed by Western Growers Association and Olive
15 Hill Greenhouses, Inc., assert the same seven causes of action against the same defendants.
16 (Compare No. 24-cv-01601, Doc. 1, with No. 25-cv-00577, Doc. 1.) In a broader sense, all
17 plaintiffs—including those recently granted intervention in Case No. 24-cv-01601—seek to have
18 the MMC provisions declared unconstitutional and to enjoin defendants from enforcing them.
19 (No. 24-cv-01601, Docs. 1, 13-1; No. 25-cv-00577, Doc. 1.) Consolidating the above captioned
20 cases was also contemplated in the Order transferring Case No. 25-cv-00577 to this district,
21 which recognized that “[t]he possibility of consolidation weighs in favor of transfer.” (No. 25-cv-
22 00577, Doc. 21-1 at 1–2 (citing A.J. Indus., Inc v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. Of Cal., 503
23 F.2d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974))). In sum, consolidating these related cases would result in
24 substantial administrative benefits and only minimal inconvenience, delay, or expense. Huene,
25 743 F.2d at 704.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1 Accordingly:
2 1. The above-referenced cases shall be consolidated for all purposes, including trial,
3 pursuant to Rule 42(a);
4 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this Order in each of the above-referenced
5 cases;
6 3. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file
7 documents under only the lead case number. Future captions should indicate the
8 lead case number followed by the member case number as follows:
9 Lead Case: 1:24-cv-01601-KES-CDB
10 Member Case: 1:25-cv-00577-KES-CDB
11 4. Plaintiffs shall file and serve a consolidated complaint within seven (7) days of the
12 date of this Order. Defendants’ response to the consolidated complaint shall be
13 filed and served within fourteen (14) days of filing and service of the consolidated
14 complaint; and
15 5. The scheduling conference set for September 25, 2025 at 09:30 AM in Bakersfield
16 (CDB) before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker remains set.
17
18
19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _
20 Dated: _ July 1, 2025 4A :
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11088172. Public record. Not legal advice.