Adams et al v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WILLIE UNDERWOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION
(CDCR), et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-04399-JST
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE CASES
Re: ECF No. 66
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate the instant case with Adams v.
California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 21-cv-8545-JST. ECF No. 66. The
instant case is a single plaintiff case raising similar claims as the Adams mass tort action. Id. at 2.
In addition to consolidating this case with Adams, Underwood requests that “the Court . . . place
Mr. Underwood’s case on the Adams litigation schedule,” i.e., vacate the case schedule in
Underwood’s case and proceed only with the bellwether trial schedule in Adams. ECF No. 66 at
4. Defendants do not oppose the motion. ECF No. 74.
A district court may consolidate actions that “involve a common question of law or
fact . . . . ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “The district court has broad discretion under this rule to
consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent.
Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In deciding whether to consolidate actions,
“a court must balance the savings of time and effort consolidation will produce against any
inconvenience, delay, confusion, or prejudice that may result.” Takeda v. Turbodyne Techs., Inc.,
67 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1133 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Burrus v. Turnbo, 743 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir.
1984)).
Case 4:21-cv-08545-JST Document 211 Filed 07/14/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
These cases involve largely overlapping facts and legal theories and are brought against the
same principal defendant. No party opposes consolidation. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the
motion to consolidate the two actions. Adams v. California Dep’t of Corrections &
Rehabilitation, Case No. 21-cv-8545-JST, and Underwood v. California Dep’t of Corrections &
Rehabilitation, Case No. 24-cv-04399-JST shall be consolidated both for purposes of trial and all
pre-trial proceedings, including discovery. Underwood shall be subject to the existing schedule in
Adams and all other deadlines in Underwood are vacated. Any future filings related to either of
these matters shall be made under only the lead case number, Case No. 21-cv-8545-JST. The
clerk is ordered to administratively close 24-cv-04399-JST.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 14, 2026
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
Case 4:21-cv-08545-JST Document 211 Filed 07/14/26 Page 2 of 2