Beltran v. EMI Music, Inc.

Filing 53

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying (45) Motion to Consolidate Cases without Prejudice in case 4:12-cv-01002-YGR (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2012)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GRACIELA BELTRAN, et al.
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

14

CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, f/k/a, CAPITOL
RECORDS, INC. AND EMI MUSIC, INC.,
Defendants.
_______________________________
MARTHA DAVIS, et al.,

17

12-cv-1602

Plaintiffs,

15
16

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

vs.

12
13

Case No.: 12-cv-1002 YGR

VS.

EMI GROUP LIMITED,

18

Defendant.
19
20

_________________________________
DALE BOZZIO, et al.,

21
22

12-cv-2421

Plaintiffs,
VS.

23
24
25
26

EMI GROUP LIMITED, ET AL.
Defendants.
On June 26, 2012, Plaintiff Graciela Beltran filed her Motion for Order of Consolidation

27
28

seeking to consolidate the actions of Graciela Beltran, et al. v. Capitol Records, LLC, et al., Case No.

1

12-cv-1002, Martha Davis, et al. v. EMI Group Limited, Case No. 12-cv-1602, and Dale Bozzio, et al.

2

v. EMI Group Limited, et al., Case No. 12-cv-2421. Defendants oppose the motion to consolidate.

3

The Court has broad discretion to determine whether consolidation is warranted. Investors

4

Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Southern Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). Here,

5

the pleadings are not yet settled. Defendants have raised questions regarding the enforceability of the
6
7

contract in Beltran. Pending in these related actions are motions to dismiss the amended complaints

8

in Beltran and in Bozzio. Moreover, since the motion to consolidate was filed, an additional case has

9

been ordered related to these pending matters, Ralph Vierra Tavares, et al., v. Capitol Records, LLC,

10

et al., Case No. 12-cv-3059. (See Order dated July 18, 2012, Dkt. No. 50.)

11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Considerations of judicial efficiency and prompt resolution of the issues aimed at the

13

individual complaints do not favor consolidation at this time. The motion is DENIED without

14

prejudice to a future motion or stipulation.

15

This Order Terminates Docket Number 45 in 12-cv-1002.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 1, 2012

__________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2