Perkins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 38

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)

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