Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE LANDT, individually and as co- Case Nos.: 3:25-cv-01364-RBM-DEB; trustees of the Landt Family Trust; et al., 3:20-cv-00234-RBM-DEB 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER: v. 14 (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION M&E BROTHERS, LLC; et al., 15 TO CONSOLIDATE CASES Defendants. [Doc. 59]; 16 17 (2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 18 [Doc. 57] AND MOTION TO 19 WITHDRAW MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE [Doc. 60]; and 20 21 (3) RESETTING PRETRIAL SCHEDULES 22 24 25 Pending before the Court is the Parties’ Stipulation and Joint Motion to Consolidate 26 for Trial Purposes Only (“Joint Motion to Consolidate”). (Doc. 59.) The Parties seek to 27 consolidate this action, Landt v. M&E Brothers, LLC, 25-cv-01364-RBM-DEB (the “Landt 28 Action”) with Pacific Resources Associates LLC v. Suzy Cleaners, 20-cv-00234-RBM- 1 DEB (the “Pacific Resources Action”). (Id. at 2–3.) The Parties “agree that both [actions] 2 share common questions of law and fact, and that consolidating the two actions for trial 3 will avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” (Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)).) The Parties also 4 stipulate and request that the Court consolidate the final pretrial conference and related 5 pretrial deadlines so that the Parties may prepare for trial on one timeline. (Id. at 3–4.) 6 I. JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 7 “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may 8 . . . consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “The district court has broad discretion 9 under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors. Rsch. Co. v. 10 United States Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In 11 exercising its broad discretion to order consolidation, a district court “weighs the saving of 12 time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense 13 that it would cause.” Huene v. United States,743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984), on reh’g, 14 753 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1984). 15 As the Court noted in its previous Order denying without prejudice the motion to 16 consolidate, the Landt Action and the Pacific Resources Action share common parties and 17 questions of law and fact. (Doc. 34.) The Court denied that earlier motion to consolidate 18 because of its concerns with the differing procedural postures of the two actions and 19 potential delay of progression toward trial. (Id. at 3–5.) The Parties’ representations in the 20 Joint Motion to Consolidate address those concerns, and the Court now agrees with the 21 Parties that consolidating the actions for trial will serve judicial economy. Furthermore, 22 given the Parties’ stipulation, the Court does not identify any prejudice that consolidation 23 would cause. Therefore, the Joint Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 59) is GRANTED. This 24 action is CONSOLIDATED with Pacific Resources Associates LLC v. Suzy Cleaners, 20- 25 cv-00234-RBM-DEB. That action, 20-cv-00234-RBM-DEB, shall be the lead case. 26 II. PRETRIAL SCHEDULES 27 First, as the Parties stipulate and request, discovery in the Pacific Resources action 28 shall remain closed. Second, all deadlines and directives set forth in the March 5, 2026 1 Scheduling Order in the Landt Action (Doc. 43) shall remain unchanged. Third, the Court 2 AMENDS the pretrial schedule in 20-cv-00234-RBM-DEB to coincide with the pretrial 3 schedule in 25-cv-01364-RBM-DEB; both actions shall now follow the schedule below: 4 5 Event Deadline 6 File Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law March 4, 2027 Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) 7 8 Pretrial Disclosures Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil March 4, 2027 Procedure 26(a)(3) 9 10 Meet and Confer Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) March 11, 2027 11 Plaintiffs’ Counsel Provides Opposing Counsel with March 18, 2027 12 Proposed Final Pretrial Order 13 Parties Lodge Proposed Final Pretrial Order Pursuant to March 25, 2027 14 Local Rule 16.1(f)(6) 15 Final Pretrial Conference April 1, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. 16 17 18 III. CONCLUSION 19 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 20 1. The Joint Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 59) is GRANTED. This action is 21 CONSOLIDATED with Pacific Resources Associates LLC v. Suzy Cleaners, 20- 22 cv-00234-RBM-DEB. That action, 20-cv-00234-RBM-DEB, shall be the lead case. 23 2. The Final Pretrial Conference and all related pretrial deadlines in 20-cv-00234- 24 RBM-DEB are AMENDED to coincide with the Final Pretrial Conference and 25 related deadlines in 25-cv-01364-RBM-DEB, as reflected in the chart above. 26 3. Discovery in the Landt Action, 25-cv-01364, shall remain closed. 27 4. All deadlines and directives set forth in the Landt Action’s Scheduling Order 28 (Doc. 43) remain unchanged. l 5. In light of the above, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 57) and Motion to 2 Withdraw Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 60) are DENIED as moot. 3 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to docket this Order to the dockets in both 25-cv- 4 01364-RBM-DEB and 20-cv-00234-RBM-DEB. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || DATE: July 27, 2026 eet Besrniskr, MA oitttrgges > g ON. RUTH BERMUDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28