Frlekin et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 106


Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?