Opinions and documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RADLEY ALCANTARA, et al., Case No.: 25-cv-02376-AJB-MMP
individually and on behalf of all others
12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION
similarly situated,
TO CONSOLIDATE
13 Plaintiffs,
14 v. (Doc. No. 34)
15 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
INC., and HONDA MOTOR
16
COMPANY LIMITED,
17 Defendants.
18
19 Plaintiffs Radley Alcantara, Ashley Bowman, Kevin Lucey, Austin Polson, Tiffany
20 Richardson, and Brian Wise and Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. jointly move
21 to consolidate this action with Bissell, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., No.
22 3:24-cv-02286-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2024), with Bissell serving as the lead case.
23 All future submissions shall be filed only in Bissell (Case No. 3:24-cv-02286-AJB-MMP).
24 For the reasons stated in this Court’s Order to Show Cause Re: Consolidation (Doc.
25 No. 33), and having considered the joint motion, the joint motion to consolidate is
26 GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The benefit to judicial
27 convenience of consolidating this action with the Bissell action outweighs the potential for
28 any inconvenience, delay, or expense that consolidation could cause, because consolidation
1 || would avoid duplicative discovery and proceedings in these cases that are based on nearly
2 ||identical allegations, share common issues of law and fact, are in similar stages of
3 || development, and are pending in the same venue. See Huene v. U.S.,743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th
4 ||Cir. 1984), on reh’g, 753 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1984) (district court “weighs the saving of
5 || time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense
6 || that it would cause’). In light of the Joint Motion, the Order to Show Cause regarding
7 || consolidation is hereby discharged. (See Doc. No. 33.)
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9 Dated: February 10, 2026 ©
10 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia
11 United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.