Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Zimmerman v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

November 13, 2017

KEVIN ZIMMERMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendant. STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. ADAM PAUL LAXALT, Attorney General, Defendant-Intervenor, KEVIN ZIMMERMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., dba THE HOME DEPOT #3316, Defendant. STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. ADAM PAUL LAXALT, Attorney General, Defendant-Intervenor,

          ORDER

          GEORGE FOLEY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This 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.[1] 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.

         BACKGROUND

         These 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.

         Chief 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 2:17-cv-01454-JCM-GWF.

         DISCUSSION

         Federal 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)).

         Local Rule 42-1 states as follows:

An action may be considered to be re1lated to another action when:
(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 event;
(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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.