United States District Court, D. Nevada
A. Navarro, United States District Judge
before the Court is Intervenor State of Nevada's
(“Intervenor's”) Motion to Consolidate, (ECF
Plaintiff Kevin Zimmerman (“Plaintiff”) filed a
Response, (ECF No. 39), and Intervenor filed a Reply, (ECF
No. 41). For the reasons discussed herein, Intervenor's
Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED
cases arise out of alleged violations of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42
U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and a series of
lawsuits filed by Plaintiff against various
defendant-entities in the Las Vegas, Nevada area. On February
28, 2017, the Court issued an omnibus order transferring more
than seventy of Plaintiff's cases to the undersigned and
the Honorable Magistrate Judge George Foley. See
Zimmerman v. Nevada CVS Pharmacy, LLC, No.
2:17-cv-00307-GMN-GWF (D. Nev. 2017) (Omnibus Transfer Order,
ECF No. 5). The Court reasoned that the “allegations in
each of these cases are nearly identical, ” and that
“judicial economy will be served” by transferring
all of the cases to a single District Court Judge and
Magistrate Judge. (Id. 1:26-2:3).
August 8, 2017, Intervenor filed a motion to intervene as a
limited-purpose defendant, (ECF No. 28), which Judge Foley
subsequently granted on October 11, 2017. (ECF No. 35). On
October 17, 2017, Intervenor filed the instant Motion to
Consolidate, (ECF No. 37). According to Intervenor's
Motion, Plaintiff filed approximately 275 complaints in the
District of Nevada between the dates of January 31, 2017, and
October 17, 2017. (Mot. to Consolidate 2:25). Intervenor
further asserts that, as of October 2017, approximately
eighty-nine cases were active. (Id. 2:25-3:2);
(see App. A to Mot. to Consolidate, ECF No.
to this, Intervenor seeks consolidation of all of
Plaintiff's cases for the limited purpose of determining
“whether the complaints filed by this Plaintiff should
be dismissed on the basis of common issues of law and fact,
” and “whether the Court should issue any
sanctions or other remedial orders.” (Id.
42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions
to consolidate. It provides:
If actions before the court involve a common question of law
or fact, the court may join for hearing or trial any or all
matters at issue in the actions, consolidate the actions, or
issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
deciding whether to consolidate cases, the threshold question
for the court to answer is whether the actions involve common
questions of law or fact. See Id. District courts
are given wide latitude in exercising their discretion to
grant or deny consolidation. See In re Adams Apples,
Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987).
“Consolidation requires only a common question of law
or fact; perfect identity between all claims in any two cases
is not required, so long as there is some commonality of
issues.” Firefighters, Local 1908 v. Cnty. of
Clark, No. 2:12-cv-00615-MMD-VCF, 2012 WL 1986590, at *2
(D. Nev. June 1, 2012). If the court determines that common
questions are present, it must then balance the savings of
time and effort that consolidation will produce against any
inconvenience, delay, confusion, or prejudice that may
result. Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704
(9th Cir. 1984). Finally, whether actions should be
consolidated under Rule 42(a) is a matter committed to the
trial court's discretion. Inv'rs Research Co. v.
U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777
(9th Cir. 1989).
moves for consolidation on the basis that all the complaints
in these actions are “substantially similar” and
“contain common questions of law and fact.” (Mot.
to Consolidate 11:9-15). Specifically, Intervenor seeks
consolidation for the limited purpose of determining whether
all cases should be dismissed “on the basis of
threshold questions of law and fact common to all
consolidated cases, including, but not limited to,
Plaintiff's lack of standing, and Plaintiff's failure
to state a cause of action.” (Id.
Moreover, in its Reply, Intervenor states that it intends to
assert a facial challenge to Plaintiff's standing based
on common allegations and omissions in all of Plaintiff's
complaints. (Reply 6:4-7, ECF No. 41).
responds that “key facts in each of Plaintiff's
cases are unique and specific to each location, which
destroys the commonality of fact” alleged by
Intervenor. (Resp. 3:23-25, ECF No. 39). Plaintiff asserts
that his claims “arise from specific and distinct facts
related to where he suffered discrimination, how he suffered,
the way each unique defendant subjected him to unequal
access, the identity of the responsible defendants, and the
separate and specific date when the events occurred.”
(Id. 8:22-9:1). Moreover, Plaintiff contends that
the complaints allege “no less than 37 specific and