Cecil Elmore Jr v. Starbucks Corporation

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 CECIL ELMORE, JR., Case No. 2:25-cv-00768-FLA (BFMx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH CECIL [14] ELMORE, JR. V. STARBUCKS 15 STARBUCKS CORPORATION, et al., COFFEE COMPANY, CASE NO. 2:24CV-10259-FLA (BFMx) 16 Defendants. [28] 1 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), a court may consolidate actions involving “a 3 | common question of law or fact” and has “broad discretion under this rule to 4 | consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Jnvs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for 5 | Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777 , 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see also In re Adams Apple, 6 | Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (“trial courts may consolidate cases sua 7 | sponte”) (citation omitted). “To determine whether to consolidate, a court weighs the 8 | interest in judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and 9 | prejudice caused by consolidation.” Paxonet Commc’ns, Inc. v. TranSwitch Corp., 10 | 303 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citation omitted). 11 Here, it appears the benefits of judicial economy and convenience from 12 | consolidating this action with Cecil Elmore, Jr. v. Starbucks Coffee Company, Case 13 | No. 2:24-cv-10259-FLA (BFMx) (“Elmore I’) outweigh any potential for delay, 14 | confusion, and prejudice, as Plaintiff asserts the same or similar claims against the 15 || same Defendant in each action. 16 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing only 17 | within fourteen (14) days of this Order why this action should not be consolidated 18 | with Elmore I. Responses shall be limited to five (5) pages in length. Failure to 19 || respond timely may result in the consolidation of the actions without further notice 20 | from the court. [21] 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. [23] 24 | Dated: June 2, 2025 5 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge