Allan v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 56


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 TAMARA ALLAN, Case No. 16-cv-03320-BLF Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant. ORDER SUBMITTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT; VACATING HEARING; AND DENYING MOTION [Re: ECF 51] 13 14 The Motion to Consolidate Cases that was set for hearing on May 4, 2017 is hereby 15 SUBMITTED without oral argument and the hearing is VACATED. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The 16 motion is DENIED for the reasons discussed below. 17 Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. asks this Court to consolidate 171 cases 18 that currently are assigned to several different judges in this district. Defendant’s motion is 19 governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), which permits a court to consolidate cases that 20 “involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “The district court has broad 21 discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Inv’rs Research Co. 22 v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In 23 determining 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 Holdings, 25 Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 26 Neither Rule 42(a) nor this Court’s Civil Local Rules contemplate consolidation of cases 27 that are assigned to different judges. Nor do these rules authorize transfer of cases from one judge 28 to another absent a determination that the cases are related under Civil Local Rule 3-12. While the 1 cases at issue share common legal theories, they are asserted on behalf of different plaintiffs based 2 on different facts and therefore do not meet the definition of related cases under Civil Local Rule 3 3-12. Moreover, assigning 171 cases to a single judge would result in substantial delay and 4 inconvenience, which would outweigh any efficiency that might be gained from consolidation. 5 As to the cases pending before the undersigned judge, the Court finds that consolidation is 6 inappropriate under the circumstances. Should these cases make it past the pleading stage, much 7 of the discovery and many of the factual issues will be individualized. For example, showing that 8 the reporting of each plaintiff’s debt was inaccurate, and that the plaintiff suffered resulting 9 damages, will require plaintiff-specific proof. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 While formal consolidation is not warranted, the cases assigned to the undersigned judge will be coordinated to the extent practicable. IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: February 14, 2017 15 16 17 _____________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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?