United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge
11, 2017, the undersigned directed the parties to show cause
why this case should not be consolidated with Case No.
16-cv-5052-RBL-JRC and Case No. 17-cv-5070-RBL-JRC. Dkt. 94.
On May 18, 2017, plaintiff filed a fourth case, Case No.
do not oppose consolidation and believe that it would serve
the interests of justice and court efficiency. Case No.
15-cv-5208 at Dkts. 97, 99, 105; Case No. 16-cv-5052 at Dkts.
125, 126; Case No. 17-cv-5070 at Dkts. 63, 66. Plaintiff also
agrees with consolidation of his cases. Case No. 15-cv-5208
at Dkt. 111.
actions before the court involve a common question of law or
fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all
matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions;
or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or
delay.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). Under Rule 42, the Court
has “broad discretion” to consolidate cases
pending in the same district either upon motion by a party or
sua sponte. In re Adams Apple., Inc. 829 F.2d 1484,
1487 (9th Cir. 1987).
plaintiff's fourth case, Case No. 17-cv-5377-RBL-JRC, was
filed after the Court's May 11, 2017 Order, the Court
finds that all four cases require application of similar
laws, and involve similar facts and parties. Thus, the Court
finds that consolidation of all four cases will result in
judicial economy and convenience, and reduce confusion.
the Court ORDERS:
(1) Case No. 16-cv-5052-RBL-JRC, Case No. 17-cv-5070-RBL-JRC,
and Case No. 17-cv-5377-RBL-JRC are consolidated with this
(2) This action, Case No. 15-5208-RBL-JRC, shall remain the
lead case. All future filings shall bear Case No.
(3) Plaintiff shall file one amended complaint setting forth
all claims in this consolidated matter on or before
July 14, 2017. The amended complaint shall
be the operative complaint in this consolidated action. The
amended complaint is limited to 25 pages in length, including
(4) The stay is continued until July 14, 2017. The
undersigned again advises the parties that it will not
consider any future filings, aside from plaintiff's
consolidated amended complaint. The Court may strike any
pleadings that fail to comply with this Order. See
Consolidated Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt.
May 11, 2017 Order, the undersigned also directed plaintiff
to file one motion for preliminary injunction, limited to ten
pages, addressing all of his claims. Dkt. 94. On May 19,
2017, plaintiff filed his consolidated motion for preliminary
injunction, which was ten pages in length. Dkt. 100.
Plaintiff then filed two addendums of an additional 12 pages
to his motion for preliminary injunction. Dkts. 101, 102. As
plaintiff was previously advised of the ten page limit for
his consolidated motion for preliminary injunction, the Court
will not consider plaintiff's additional addendums at
plaintiff files a consolidated amended complaint, setting
forth all of his claims in this consolidated matter, on or
before July 14, 2017, the Court will procced with the
consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended
complaint will act as a complete replacement for the original
complaint, and plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief
may be mooted. See e.g. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix
Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984) (the
purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the
status quo or prevent irreparable injury pending the
resolution of the underlying claim); Maloney v.
Ryan, 2013 WL 3282324, *2 (D. Ariz. June 28, 2013)
(“because plaintiff's original complaint no longer
serves any function in this case, it cannot form the basis
for his pending TRO motion ...