United States District Court, D. Arizona
HONORABLE DAVID C. BURY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
filed these actions, arising from the same event that
transpired on May 30, 2018, when Plaintiffs allegedly went to
the customer service room at the Tucson City Court to make a
documentary film reflecting the alleged abuse Anthony Potter
suffered when trying to obtain motion forms. The Plaintiffs
allege they were illegally seized and detained by Defendants.
Plaintiff Peltz alleges his property, cell phone, was
illegally seized. Plaintiff Brown alleges that excessive use
of force was employed during his seizure. The Defendants are
the same, except Plaintiff Brown adds Keith Miranda and
Harrison Still, and Plaintiff Peltz adds Noe Mendoza.
Defendants removed both actions on August 22, 2019.
Defendants seek to consolidate the actions and report the
Plaintiffs have no objection. Defendants also seek an
extension of time to file responsive pleadings to the
Complaints, pending a ruling by the Court regarding
Court, having the lowest case number rules on the question of
consolidation. LRCiv. 42.1(b). Accordingly, this Court finds
that consolidation is appropriate pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
42(a) because the actions involve common questions of law and
fact. The case pending before the Honorable James A. Soto is
transferred to this Court for the same reasons. “When
two or more cases are pending before different Judges, a
party in any of those cases may file a motion to
transfer the case or cases to a single Judge on the
ground that the cases: (1) arise from substantially the same
transaction or event; (2) involve substantially the same
parties or property; (3) involve the same patent, trademark,
or copyright; (4) call for determination of substantially the
same questions of law; or (5) for any other reason would
entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different
Judges.” LRCiv. 42.1(a).
consolidated the cases, the Court vacates the Order entered
in CV 19-418 TUC JAS granting a 45-day extension of time for
Defendants to file an Answer or otherwise respond to
Plaintiff Peltz's Complaint. Plaintiffs filed their
actions in state court and served the Defendants, who
subsequently sought an extension of time to Answer until
August 23, 2019. Upon removal on August 22, 2019, the
Defendants had 7 days to answer the Complaints. Fed.R.Civ.P.
81(c)(2)(C). As noticed on both cases, this Court is
participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot
(MIDP), and the cases are subject to the pilot program. (CV
19-415 TUC DCB (Doc. 3); CV 19-418 TUC JAS (Doc. 3)). The
MIDP precludes the Court from granting a 45-day extension of
time; pursuant to MIDP ¶ A.5, the Court may grant a
one-time extension of up to 30 days to respond to the
complaint upon a showing that a defendant cannot reasonably
respond to a complaint within the time set forth in Rule
12(a). The Court grants such an extension of time, with
responsive pleadings due by September 29, 2019. The parties
shall note that their MIDP Initial Responses are due no later
than 30 days after the first responsive pleading is filed in
the case. General Order 17-08 ¶ 6. The Court may defer
the initial MIDP discovery responses, “one time, for 30
days if the parties jointly certify to the Court that they
are seeking to settle the case and have a good faith belief
that it will be resolved within 30 days of the due date for
their responses.” Id.
IS ORDERED that the Motion to Consolidate (CV 19-415
TUC DCB (Doc. 5) is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that CV 19-418 TUC JAS shall be
transferred to this Court and shall be from this time forward
captioned as CV 19-418 TUC DCB.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that CV 19-415 TUC DCB shall be
consolidated with CV 19-418 TUC DCB. All future filings shall
bear the captions for both cases, but the lead case shall be
CV 19-415 TUC DCB. All future filings shall be under the case
number CV 19-415 TUC DCB.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the extension of time
granted in CV 19-418 TUC JAS (Order (Doc. 7) is VACATED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall
term the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 5) pending in CV 19-418
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Extend time to
file responsive pleadings (Doc. 6) is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for Defendants
to file responsive pleadings is extended, one time, to
September 29, 2019. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME ...