Free Consolidation Order - LEAD CASE ONLY! - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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 The court has before it "Plaintiffs' Local Rule 42.1(a)(1) Motion to Transfer Case No. CV-05-1387-JWS to this Court for Consolidation with this case" (doc. 151), to which there has been no response. Plaintiffs' claim against the Woodcock defendants was originally part of CV-04-78. When the Woodcocks filed for bankruptcy, we entered an order instructing plaintiffs to seek a lift of the automatic stay and unless the stay were lifted, or unless the plaintiffs advised us that the request to lift the stay was either denied or not yet acted upon, we would dismiss the case (doc. 67). Plaintiffs did not follow this court's instruction to seek a lifting of the stay.
Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM Document 164 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Timothy A. Shimko, Shimko & Piscitelli,) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) ) David Goldfarb, Rhona Goldfarb, ) Richard Ross, Marcia Ross, ) Milton Guenther and Kathi Guenther; ) ) Defendants, ) ) Timothy A. Shimko, Shimko & Piscitelli,) ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) ) ) Paul Woodcock and ) Bobbi Woodcock, ) ) Defendants. ) ) No. CV-04-00078-PHX-FJM ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

CV-05-1387-PHX-FJM

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

Instead, plaintiffs allowed the case against the Woodcocks to be dismissed (doc. 86). The case proceeded without the Woodcocks and plaintiffs brought a separate action against the Woodcocks which is CV-05-1387 and was assigned to Judge Sedwick. Judge Sedwick properly denied plaintiffs earlier motion to transfer the Woodcock case to the undersigned back on January 31, 2006 (doc. 14). Meanwhile, however, the court of appeals remanded the case against the Ross and Goldfarb defendants for trial and plaintiffs now seek to have the trial against theWoodcocks consolidated with the trial against Ross and Goldfarb. After consultation with Judge Sedwick, we agreed that this would promote the efficient administration of justice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiffs' motion to transfer CV-05-1387 to the undersigned and consolidate it with CV-04-78 for all further proceedings. Mr. McDaniel, counsel for the Woodcocks and the Guenthers, appeared at the scheduling conference in CV-04-78 on December 7, 2007, and was advised that the scheduling order in that case would apply to the entire case, including the case against the Woodcock defendants. Thus, all parties are on notice that the scheduling order entered in CV-04-78 applies to all the claims of all the parties, including the Woodcocks. The parties are advised that given the age of both of these cases, no amendments or extensions to the Rule 16 scheduling order shall be granted. Again, given the age of these cases, we may, calendar permitting, and upon reasonable notice, accelerate the case for trial before the firm August 26, 2008 trial date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the reference to the United States Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference shall also apply to the claims against the Woodcocks. DATED this 13th day of December, 2007.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM Document 164 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 2 of 2