Frlekin et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 106

ORDER RE CONSOLIDATION OF CASES AND REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Alsup on 1/6/2014. (whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
AMANDA FRLEKIN, et al.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 13-03451 WHA

Plaintiffs,

No. C 13-04727 WHA

v.
APPLE, INC.,

14

Defendant.
/

15

ORDER RE CONSOLIDATION
OF CASES AND REQUESTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

16
17

TAYLOR KALIN,
Plaintiff,

18
19
20
21

v.
APPLE, INC.,
Defendant.
/

22
23

Defendant Apple, Inc., has moved to consolidate the Frlekin and Kalin actions. Counsel

24

in the Frlekin action do not oppose this motion, and counsel in the Kalin action have yet to file

25

an opposition or a notice of non-opposition.

26

Courts have “broad discretion” in deciding whether to consolidate separate actions.

27

Investors Research Co. v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777

28

(9th Cir. 1989). In exercising this discretion, the Court "weighs the saving of time and effort

1

consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause."

2

Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).

3

Consolidating the Frlekin and Kalin actions would result in six different plaintiff law

4

firms representing plaintiffs in a single action. This would require considerable effort to craft a

5

consolidated complaint. Moreover, if the proposed consolidated action were to proceed as a

6

class action, the requests for reimbursement of costs and attorney’s fees from the six law firms

7

would undoubtedly deplete the recovery for the putative class. An alternative is to select a

8

smaller group of plaintiffs and firms, perhaps one each, to proceed on a possible class basis, with

9

all others to proceed on an individual basis.
All counsel for all parties shall please submit memoranda commenting on the foregoing,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

as well as which, if any, counsel should possibly be appointed as interim class counsel. The

12

memoranda should also address if one plaintiff is allowed to proceed as a putative class

13

representative, who it should be. This is due by THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 2014, AT NOON and is

14

limited to seven pages per submission. Finally, all parties shall also advise the Court as to any

15

related actions elsewhere in the United States.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: January 6, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2