Jugoz v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 57

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. AND EQUIFAX, INC.'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; VACATING HEARING. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 10, 2017. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 RUDOLPH JUGOZ, Plaintiff, 6 7 8 v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., 9 10 Defendants. TERESA ROBLES, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et. al., Defendants. 15 JANET PERKINS, 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. 20 21 WILHELMINE MADEIROS, Plaintiff, 22 23 24 25 26 v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 16-cv-05687-MMC ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. AND EQUIFAX, INC.'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; VACATING HEARING Re: Dkt. No. 35 Case No. 16-cv-05693-MMC ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. AND EQUIFAX, INC.'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; VACATING HEARING Re: Dkt. No. 36 Case No. 16-cv-06347-MMC ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. AND EQUIFAX, INC.'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; VACATING HEARING Re: Dkt. No. 20 Case No. 16-cv-06338-MMC ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. AND EQUIFAX, INC.'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; VACATING HEARING Re: Dkt. No. 26 Before the Court is the "Motion to Consolidate," filed December 22, 2016, in each 27 of the above-titled four cases, by defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 28 ("Experian") and Equifax, Inc. ("Equifax"), by which filing said defendants seek to 1 consolidate more than 170 lawsuits filed by plaintiffs' counsel and presently assigned to 2 eighteen different judges in this district. Each of the four plaintiffs, as well as Wells 3 Fargo Bank, N.A., one of the named defendants, have responded, to which Experian and 4 Equifax have jointly filed a reply. The Court deems the matter suitable for determination 5 on the parties' respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for 6 February 17, 2017, and hereby rules as follows. 7 Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may 8 consolidate actions that "involve a common question of law or fact," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 42(a), and has "broad discretion" to decide whether consolidation is appropriate, see Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Central Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 (1989). 12 This Court, having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in 13 opposition to the motion, is in accord with a number of judges in this district who have 14 denied similar motions. See, e.g., Vizcaino v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 15 3:16-cv-5703-TEH (N.D. Cal. January 31, 2017); Gonzalez v. Experian Information 16 Solutions, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-5678-HSG (N.D. Cal. January 4, 2017). In particular, 17 although each of the actions asserts claims based on alleged violations of the Fair Credit 18 Reporting Act, the Court finds any potential efficiency attributable to having such actions 19 heard by a single judge would be outweighed by the various procedural delays resulting 20 from the reassignment of a large number of cases pending at varying stages of the 21 proceedings, coupled with the considerable burden placed on such jurist in adjudicating 22 not only any common issue raised therein but all individual issues as well. 23 24 25 26 Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is, in each of the above-titled cases, hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 10, 2017 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 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?