Oseguera v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 26 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HENRY OSEGUERA,

Case No. 16-cv-05706-HSG

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE

v.
9
10

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Re: Dkt. No. 26

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 Experian Information

19

Solutions, Inc. has moved for the Court to consolidate more than 170 similar suits filed by

20

Plaintiff’s counsel and alleging violations of state and federal credit reporting laws. Dkt. No. 26.

21

On balance, the Court finds that any efficiency gained by having a single judge hear the suits

22

would be outweighed by the delay that would result from burdening a single judge’s chambers

23

with over 170 cases—on top of its existing caseload. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion

24

to consolidate.

25
26
27
28

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