Younger v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al
ORDER Denying 17 Motion to Consolidate. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/31/17. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2017)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
Case No. 16-cv-06354-TEH
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
Before the Court is Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Equifax, Inc.’s Joint
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Motion to Consolidate filed on December 22, 2016. The agencies seek to consolidate more
than 170 suits filed by Plaintiff’s counsel and assigned to different judges in this district.
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 to decide whether consolidation is appropriate. Inv’rs Research Co. v.
U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir.1989).
This Court joins other judges in the Northern District of California in DENYING
the joint request for consolidation. See e.g., Mamisay v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
No. 4:16-cv-05684-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2017); Gonzalez v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
et al, No. 3:16-cv-05678-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2017). First, the Court does not have the
authority to consolidate cases not before it. See General Order No. 44(B) (granting the
Court’s Executive Committee the power to review assignment orders). Second, any
efficiency gained by consolidation would be outweighed by the delay and undue burden
resulting from assignment of over a hundred cases to a single judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THELTON E. HENDERSON
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?