Hilda Underwood and Troy Underwood v. Roadtrek Inc.; Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly moved to consolidate two actions involving nearly identical allegations and common issues. The court granted the motion, designating Case No. 3:26-cv-02162 as the lead case and setting deadlines for an amended consolidated complaint and response.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Consolidate Cases“Therefore, the joint motion to consolidate is GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).” | agree with court The court applied the correct standard for consolidation under Rule 42(a) by weighing the benefits of judicial convenience (avoiding duplicative discovery, common issues, same venue) against potential inconvenience or delay. The cited authority, Huene v. U.S., correctly states the balancing test. The decision is supported by the joint nature of the motion and the factual similarities described in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 42(a)) and the controlling standard from Ninth Circuit precedent (Huene). It applies the standard to the specific facts presented (identical allegations, common issues, same venue, joint motion) and reaches a logical conclusion. The procedural orders following the consolidation are standard and appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HILDA UNDERWOOD AND TROY Case No.: 26cv2162-LL-MSB UNDERWOOD, 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiffs, 13 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE v. CASES 14 ROADTREK INC.; MERCEDES-BENZ 15 [ECF No. 7] USA, LLC; AND DOES 1 through 10, 16 inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiffs Hilda Underwood and Troy Underwood and Defendants Roadtrek Inc. and 20 Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC jointly move to consolidate this action with Hilda Underwood, 21 et al. v. Roadtrek, Inc., et al., No. 3:26-cv-2154-LL-MSB (S.D. Cal. April 6, 2026), with 22 Case No. 3:26-cv-2162-LL-MSB serving as the lead case. 23 The benefit to judicial convenience of consolidating these actions outweighs the 24 potential for any inconvenience, delay, or expense that consolidation could cause, because 25 consolidation would avoid duplicative discovery and proceedings in these cases that are 26 based on nearly identical allegations, share common issues of law and fact, are in similar 27 stages of development, and are pending in the same venue. See Huene v. U.S.,743 F.2d 28 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984), on reh’g, 753 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1984) (district court “weighs 1 ||the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, 2 ||delay, or expense that it would cause”). Therefore, the joint motion to consolidate is 3 ||GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). 4 The Court ORDERS as follows: 5 1. All future submissions shall be filed only in Case No. 3:26-cv-2162-LL-MSB. 6 2. Plaintiffs must file an amended consolidated complaint no later than May 22, 7 2026. 8 3. Defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the amended consolidated 9 complaint no later than July 6, 2026. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: May 8, 2026 NO 12 eS 13 Honorable Linda Lopez 4 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28