Younger v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 36

ORDER Denying 17 Motion to Consolidate. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/31/17. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2017)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

CLARENCE YOUNGER,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8

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

Case No. 16-cv-06354-TEH
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE

Defendants.
9
10

Before the Court is Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Equifax, Inc.’s Joint

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Motion to Consolidate filed on December 22, 2016. The agencies seek to consolidate more

12

than 170 suits filed by Plaintiff’s counsel and assigned to different judges in this district.

13

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

14

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

15

broad discretion to decide whether consolidation is appropriate. Inv’rs Research Co. v.

16

U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir.1989).

17

This Court joins other judges in the Northern District of California in DENYING

18

the joint request for consolidation. See e.g., Mamisay v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,

19

No. 4:16-cv-05684-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2017); Gonzalez v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,

20

et al, No. 3:16-cv-05678-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2017). First, the Court does not have the

21

authority to consolidate cases not before it. See General Order No. 44(B) (granting the

22

Court’s Executive Committee the power to review assignment orders). Second, any

23

efficiency gained by consolidation would be outweighed by the delay and undue burden

24

resulting from assignment of over a hundred cases to a single judge.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: 01/31/17

28

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge