Lo v. Intel Corporation et al

Filing 5

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE in 15-cv-04977 NC. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 2/18/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2016)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

2
3
4
5
6

CHRISTOPHER M. SULYMA,
and all others similarly situated,

7

Plaintiff,

8

v.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

INTEL CORPORATION INVESTMENT
POLICY COMMITTEE, FINANCE
COMMITTEE OF THE INTEL
CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
INTEL RETIREMENT PLANS
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE,
CHARLENE BARSHEFSKY, FRANK D.
YEARY, JAMES D. PLUMMER, REED E.
HUNDT, SUSAN L. DECKER, JOHN J.
DONAHOE, DAVID S. POTTRUCK, RAVI
JACOB,

16
17
18

Defendants,
and

19

INTEL 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN and INTEL
RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTION PLAN,

20

Nominal Defendants.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

923142.1

Case No. 15-cv-04977 NC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE

1
2
3
4

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ joint, unopposed motion to consolidate Lo v. Intel Corp., et
al., No. 16-cv-00522, filed in this District as a related case on January 31, 2016, with this action.
After consideration of the motion, the response and the pertinent portions of the record, the Court
hereby orders that the Motion is GRANTED as follows:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

1.

Rule 42(a) empowers the court to consolidate “actions involving a common

question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The two actions are brought on behalf of the Intel
401(k) Savings Plan (“401(k) Plan”) and the Intel Retirement Contribution Plan (“Retirement
Plan”) (together, the “Plans”) and similarly situated participants in the Plans. The actions allege
essentially the same claims for relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) against almost all the same defendants. The actions are based on the same core set of
facts. The actions allege the same classes. Because common issues of law and fact dominate these
two cases, the Court hereby concludes that consolidation will increase the efficiency and
manageability of these cases, and consolidates the two above-captioned actions for all purposes
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated:

February 18, 2016

___________________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
923142.1