United States District Court, D. Nevada
FOLEY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant-Intervenor State of
Nevada's (“Intervenor”) Motion to Consolidate
Cases (ECF No. 40) in Case No. 2:17-cv-00529-JCM-GWF, filed
on October 17, 2017. Plaintiff did not file an opposition in
this case but Intervenor filed a Reply (ECF No. 43) on
November 6, 2017. Also before the Court is Intervenor's
Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 12) in Case No.
2:17-cv-01454-JCM-GWF, filed on October 17, 2017. Plaintiff
did not file an opposition in this case but Intervenor filed
a Reply (ECF No. 15) on November 6, 2017.
cases are two of several cases brought by Plaintiff alleging
that Nevada businesses have violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et.
seq. (“ADA”). At the outset of
Plaintiff's filings and in the interest of judicial
economy, the Court determined that all of Plaintiff's
cases should be transferred to Chief Judge Gloria Navarro and
to the undersigned. See Omnibus Transfer Order (ECF
No. 3). The cases, however, were not consolidated. Chief
Judge Navarro recused herself from the instant cases due to a
financial conflict. ECF No. 4; See Case No.
2:17-cv-01454-JCM-GWF, ECF No. 6. These cases were then
randomly assigned to District Judge James Mahan. ECF No. 5;
See Case No. 2:17-cv-01454-JCM-GWF, ECF No. 7.
Judge Navarro will decide Intervenor's motion to
consolidate the cases before her. Judge Mahan has referred
Intervenor's motion to consolidate to the undersigned in
the two cases assigned to him. Therefore, this order is
applicable only to Case Nos. 2:17-cv-00529-JCM-GWF and
Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that “[i]f
actions before the court involve common questions 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.” The Court has broad discretion in determining
whether to consolidate actions involving common questions of
law or fact. Krause v. Nevada Mut. Ins. Co., Case
No. 2:12-cv-00342-JCM-GWF, 2013 WL 6524657 at *3 (D. Nev.
2012). “Consolidation requires only a common question
of law or fact; perfect identity between all claims in any
two cases is not required.” Firefighters, Local
1908 v. County of Clark, 2012 WL 1986590 at *2 (D. Nev.
2012). The Court must weigh “the interest of judicial
convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and
prejudice caused by consolidation.”
Firefighters, 2012 WL 1986590 at *2 (quoting Sw.
Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F.Supp.
805, 807 (N.D.Cal. 1989)).
Rule 42-1 states as follows:
action may be considered to be related to another action
(1) Both actions involve the same parties and are based on
the same or similar claim;
(2) Both actions involved the same property, transaction, or
(3) Both actions involve similar questions of fact and the
same question of law, and their assignment to the same
district judge or magistrate judge is likely to effect a
substantial savings of judicial effort;
(4) Both actions involve the same patent, trademark, or
copyright, and one of the factors identified in (1), (2), or
(3) above is present; or
(5) For any other reason, it would entail substantial
duplication of labor if the actions were heard by different