Coyle v. Equifax, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 17 MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DOUGLAS COYLE,

Case No. 16-cv-05675-HSG

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CONSOLIDATION

v.
9
10

EQUIFAX, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 17

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 permits a court to consolidate actions if they “involve a

13

common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42. “The district court has broad discretion

14

under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist.

15

Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In considering a motion to

16

consolidate, a court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any

17

inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704

18

(9th Cir.), on reh’g, 753 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, Defendant Equifax, Inc. has moved for

19

the Court to consolidate more than 170 similar suits filed by Plaintiff’s counsel and alleging

20

violations of state and federal credit reporting laws. Dkt. No. 26. On balance, the Court finds that

21

any efficiency gained by having a single judge hear the suits would be outweighed by the delay

22

that would result from burdening a single judge’s chambers with over 170 cases—on top of its

23

existing caseload. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to consolidate.

24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/4/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge