Haley et al v. Macy's, Inc. et al
Filing
32
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. RELATING CASE AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART (docket no. 21 in in case 3:15-cv-06033-HSG) MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND APPOINT INTERIM COUNSEL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
KRISTIN HALEY, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
7
8
9
v.
MACY’S, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
TODD BENSON, et. al.,
14
15
16
19
20
21
24
25
Case No. 16-cv-01252-HSG
MACY’S, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ZOHREH FARHANG, et. al.,
Case No. 16-cv-02850-HSG
Plaintiffs,
v.
MACY’S, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
JOB CARDER, et. al.,
Case No. 16-cv-03341-SBA
Plaintiffs,
22
23
Dkt. Nos. 21, 31
v.
17
18
ORDER RELATING CASE AND
GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE CASES AND
APPOINT INTERIM COUNSEL
Plaintiffs,
12
13
Case No. 15-cv-06033-HSG
v.
MACY’S, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
26
27
28
Pending before the Court is (1) a sua sponte judicial referral for purpose of determining
relationship of Carder et al. v. Macy’s, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-03341-SBA (“Carder”), Dkt.
1
No. 31; and (2) Plaintiffs’ motion to (a) consolidate Haley et al. v. Macy’s, Inc., et al., Case No.
2
3:15-cv-06033-HSG; Benson v. Macy’s, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01252-HSG; Farhang v.
3
Macy’s Inc., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-02850-HSG; and all subsequently filed cases asserting
4
similar claims; and (b) appoint Gilman Law LLP (“Gilman”), Green & Noblin, P.C (“Green”), and
5
Finkelstein Thompson LLP (“FT”) as Plaintiffs’ interim counsel, with the Gilman and Green firms
6
serving as co-lead counsel, Dkt. No. 21.
The Court finds Carder related to Haley within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 3-12(a).
7
8
Accordingly, the matter of Carder et al. v. Macy’s, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-03341-SBA, shall
9
be reassigned to this Court. The parties are instructed that all future filings in that case must bear
the initials “HSG” immediately after the case number. The parties shall adjust the dates for the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
conference, disclosures, and report required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26 as
12
appropriate. Any deadlines set by the ADR Local Rules remain in effect. The Court VACATES
13
all other previously set hearing dates in Carder.
For the reasons articulated below, Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate cases and appoint
14
15
16
17
interim counsel is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
I.
BACKGROUND
The actions at issue arise out of an alleged pricing scheme by Macy’s, Inc.,
18
Bloomingdale’s, Inc., and Macy’s West Stores, Inc. (together, “Defendants”) to mislabel their
19
merchandise with false or inflated original, regular, or “compare at” prices. See Dkt. No. 1
20
(“Haley Compl.”); Benson v. Macy’s, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01252-HSG, Dkt. No. 1
21
(“Benson Compl.”); Farhang vs. Macy’s Inc., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-02850-HSG, Dkt. No. 1
22
(“Farhang Compl.”); Carder et al. v. Macy’s, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-03341-SBA, Dkt. No. 1
23
(“Carder Compl.”). Plaintiffs assert that these false or inflated prices deceive consumers into
24
believing that the listed “sale” or “discount” price is more advantageous, causing consumers to
25
purchase merchandise that they otherwise would not purchase.
26
On December 23, 2015, Plaintiffs Kristin Haley and Sylvia Thompson filed a complaint
27
against Defendants Macy’s Inc. and Bloomingdale’s, Inc. for “misrepresent[ing] the nature and
28
amount of price discounts on products sold in their regular and outlet stores . . . by purporting to
2
1
offer steep discounts off of fabricated, arbitrary, and false former or purported original, regular, or
2
‘compare at’ prices.” Haley Compl. ¶ 2. Haley and Thompson purport to represent two classes:
3
All individuals residing in California who, within the Class Period,
purchased products from one of Defendants’ Stores where the price
paid was at a sale or discount to the original, regular or compare at
price listed on the tag for that item and such individuals have not
received a refund or credit for such purchases (“California Class”);
and
4
5
6
All individuals residing in Florida who, within the Class Period,
purchased products from one of Defendants’ Stores where the price
paid was at a sale or discount to the original, regular or compare at
price listed on the tag for that item and such individuals have not
received a refund or credit for such purchases (“Florida Class”).
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Id. ¶ 32.
On March 14, 2016, Plaintiff Todd Benson filed an action against all Defendants for a
12
“deceptive advertising scheme” in which they “induce consumers into purchasing their products”
13
by “advertising merchandise tagged with inflated or fabricated ‘original,’ ‘regular,’ or ‘compare
14
at’ prices so consumers are misled into believing that the listed ‘sale’ or ‘discount’ price is worth
15
taking advantage of.” Benson Compl. ¶ 1. Benson purports to represent “[a]ll persons residing in
16
California who purchased one or more products that have not been refunded or credited from one
17
of Defendants’ Stores where the price paid was represented as a ‘sale’ or ‘discount’ to the
18
‘original,’ ‘regular,’ or ‘compare at’ price that was listed on the tag.” Id. ¶ 29.
19
On May 26, 2016, Plaintiff Zohreh Farhang filed an action against all Defendants, alleging
20
that Defendants “misrepresented the nature and amount of price discounts on products sold in their
21
regular and outlet stores . . . by purporting to offer steep discounts off of fabricated, arbitrary, and
22
false former or purported original, regular, or ‘compare at’ prices.” Farhang Compl. ¶ 2. Farhang
23
seeks to represent “[a]ll individuals residing in California who, within the Class Period, purchased
24
products from one of Defendants’ Stores where the price paid was at a sale or discount to the
25
original, regular or compare at price listed on the tag for that item and such individuals have not
26
received a refund or credit for such purchases.” Id. ¶ 27.
27
28
Finally, on June 15, 2016, Plaintiffs Job Carder and Erica Vinci filed an action against all
Defendants for “misrepresent[ing] the nature and amount of price discounts on products sold in
3
1
their regular and outlet stores . . . by purporting to offer steep discounts off of fabricated, arbitrary,
2
and false former or purported original, regular, or ‘compare at’ prices.” Carder Compl. ¶ 2.
3
Carder and Vinci purport to represent “[a]ll individuals residing in California who, within the
4
Class Period, purchased products from one of Defendants’ Stores where the price paid was at a
5
sale or discount to the original, regular or compare at price listed on the tag for that item and such
6
individuals have not received a refund or credit for such purchases (‘California Class’).” Id. ¶ 29.
7
II.
Plaintiffs Haley, Thompson, Benson, and Farhang (together, “Plaintiffs”) jointly move for
8
9
10
DISCUSSION
an order (1) consolidating Haley, Benson, Farhang, and all subsequently filed cases asserting
similar claims, and (2) appointing Gilman, Green, and FT as interim counsel. Dkt. No. 21.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
A.
12
Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate Haley, Benson, and Farhang,
13
and in their opposition request that the Court also consolidate a fourth case, Carder. Dkt. No. 26
14
at 4. However, Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ requests to (1) consolidate all future cases filed in or
15
transferred to this Court that assert similar claims and (2) rename the consolidated action. Id. at 4-
16
5.
17
Motion to Consolidate
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 permits a court to consolidate actions if they “involve a
18
common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42. “The district court has broad discretion
19
under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Hacker v. Peterschmidt, No.
20
C06-03468, 2006 WL 2925683, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2006) (citing Investors Research Co. v.
21
U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal ., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir.1989)). In analyzing a motion
22
to consolidate, a court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against
23
any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703,
24
704 (9th Cir.), on reh’g, 753 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1984).
25
After carefully analyzing the Haley, Benson, Farhang, and Carder complaints, the Court
26
finds consolidation appropriate. All four of the matters involve common questions of law or fact
27
regarding Defendants’ alleged pricing scheme. Moreover, plaintiffs in all four actions purport to
28
represent a substantially similar California class. See Haley Compl. ¶ 32; Benson Compl. ¶ 29;
4
1
Farhang Compl. ¶ 27; Carder Compl. ¶ 29. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to
2
consolidate Haley, Benson, Farhang, and Carder, and DEEMS Haley the lead case. The parties
3
shall follow Civil Local Rule 3-4(b) when filing papers in the consolidated action.
4
At this time, the Court cannot determine whether consolidation of any future cases is
5
appropriate, and therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to consolidate future
6
cases asserting similar claims.
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Additionally, the Court sees no reason to rename the consolidated action at this time, and
DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ request.
B.
Motion to Appoint Interim Counsel
Defendants contend that appointment of Gilman, Green, and FT as interim counsel under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) is premature. Dkt. No. 26 at 5.
12
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), a court “may designate interim counsel to
13
act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.”
14
A court should “designate interim counsel during the pre-certification period if necessary to
15
protect the interests of the putative class.” Wang v. OCZ Tech. Grp., Inc., No. C 11-01415 PSG,
16
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69803, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23).
17
The Court finds that the consolidated action does not present the “special circumstances”
18
that warrant appointment of interim counsel at this stage. See In re Nest Labs Litig., No. 14-cv-
19
01363-BLF, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115596, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2014). In accordance with
20
the Court’s ruling above, all pending actions in this District pertaining to Defendants’ alleged
21
pricing scheme have been consolidated, and thus there exists a single consolidated action for
22
which Plaintiffs intend to file a consolidated complaint. See Dkt. No. 21 at 7. Under these
23
circumstances, the Court sees no danger to the interests of the putative class that appointment of
24
interim counsel will remedy.
25
Moreover, Plaintiffs seek appointment of three firms as interim counsel — Gilman, Green,
26
and FT, with Gilman and Green serving as “co-lead counsel.” Id. at 7. Given that these three
27
firms represent counsel for three of the four consolidated cases, there is no “gaggle of law firms
28
jockeying to be appointed class counsel.” See In re Nest Labs Litig., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
5
1
115596, at *4. There is no rivalry between the firms: instead, the firms highlight that they “have
2
decided to work collaboratively and cooperatively to advance the litigation.” Dkt. No. 21 at 2.
3
The Court sees no purpose to be served in appointing three interim counsel firms under these
4
circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint
5
6
interim counsel.
7
III.
For the reasons articulated above, the Court (1) finds Carder related to Haley; and (2)
8
9
10
CONCLUSION
GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate and appoint interim
counsel.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
The Court:
12
1.
FINDS Carder et al. v. Macy’s, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-03341-SBA, related to
13
Haley et al. v. Macy’s, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-06033-HSG, DIRECTS that Carder be
14
reassigned to this Court, and VACATES all previously set hearing dates in Carder;
2.
15
GRANTS the motion to consolidate Haley et al. v. Macy’s, Inc., et al., Case No.
16
3:15-cv-06033-HSG; Benson v. Macy’s, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01252-HSG; Farhang vs.
17
Macy’s Inc., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-02850-HSG; and Carder et al. v. Macy’s, Inc. et al., Case
18
No. 4:16-cv-03341-SBA;
3.
19
DEEMS Haley et al. v. Macy’s, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-06033-HSG the lead
20
case and DIRECTS the Clerk to administratively close Benson v. Macy’s, Inc., et al., Case No.
21
3:16-cv-01252-HSG; Farhang vs. Macy’s Inc., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-02850-HSG; and Carder
22
et al. v. Macy’s, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-03341-SBA;
4.
23
24
similar claims;
5.
25
26
DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to consolidate future cases asserting
DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to rename the consolidated action;
and
27
28
//
6
1
6.
DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to appoint interim counsel.
2
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 7, 2016
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?