Burrows v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al
Filing
43
Order by Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 21 Motion to Consolidate Cases and Setting Hearing Date for Motions to Dismiss.(pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2017)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
LESLIE BURROWS, et al.,
8
9
10
Case No. 16-cv-06356-PJH
Plaintiffs,
7
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE AND SETTING
HEARING DATE FOR MOTIONS TO
DISMISS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 21, 35, 41
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Before the court is defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s motion to
14
consolidate cases, joined by defendant Equifax, Inc. Dkt. 21. The matter is fully briefed
15
and suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for February
16
15, 2017 is VACATED. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their
17
arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby
18
DENIES the motion to consolidate.
19
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits the court to consolidate cases that
20
“involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 42(a). The district court
21
has “broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases” before it. Investors Research
22
Co. v. U.S. District Court for C.D. Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In determining
23
whether or not to consolidate cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial
24
convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice.” Zhu v. UCBH
25
Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quotation omitted).
26
Experian asks the court to consolidate 171 cases assigned to a number of
27
different judges in this district. However, neither Rule 42 nor the Local Rules
28
contemplate reassignment of cases by one judge to another judge, unless the cases are
1
found to be related under Local Rule 3-12. While these cases may share a common
2
legal theory, they do not appear to be related under Local Rule 3-12(c). Each case
3
involves a different plaintiff and the allegedly inaccurate reporting of different accounts.
4
Moreover, assigning all 171 cases to a single judge would result in substantial delay and
5
inconvenience, outweighing any efficiency gains from consolidation.
6
As to the cases assigned to the undersigned judge, the court finds that formal
7
consolidation is inappropriate under the circumstances. Should these cases make it past
8
the pleading stage, much of the discovery and many of the factual issues will be
9
individualized. For example, showing that the reporting of each plaintiff’s debts was
inaccurate in light of a confirmed Chapter 13 plan, and the resulting damages, if any, will
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
likely require plaintiff-specific proof.
12
As to Experian’s alternative request—joined by defendant Chase Bank USA—to
13
refer the matter to the Executive Committee, there is no rule permitting a party to refer a
14
matter to or to receive a ruling from the court’s Executive Committee, which acts on case
15
assignments only when it determines to do so. Thus the request is DENIED.
16
However, the court does find that some coordination of the cases assigned to the
17
undersigned judge is appropriate. In particular, the court orders that all the pending
18
motions to dismiss the actions shall be heard on the same date: March 1, 2017, at 9:00
19
a.m., in Courtroom 3, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 20, 2017
22
23
24
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
2
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?