Gonzalez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 23 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2017)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 16-cv-05678-HSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., et al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Re: Dkt. No. 23
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 permits a court to consolidate actions if they “involve a
common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42. “The district court has broad discretion
under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist.
Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In considering a motion to
consolidate, a court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any
inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704
(9th Cir.), on reh’g, 753 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, Defendant Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. has moved for the Court to consolidate more than 170 similar suits filed by
Plaintiff’s counsel and alleging violations of state and federal credit reporting laws. Dkt. No. 23.
On balance, the Court finds that any efficiency gained by having a single judge hear the suits
would be outweighed by the delay that would result from burdening a single judge’s chambers
with over 170 cases—on top of its existing caseload. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
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?