Smith v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al
Filing
97
ORDER SUBMITTING 78 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT; VACATING HEARING; AND DENYING MOTION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/14/2017. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8
ANGIE SMITH,
Case No. 16-cv-04651-BLF
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER SUBMITTING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE CASES WITHOUT
ORAL ARGUMENT; VACATING
HEARING; AND DENYING MOTION
[Re: ECF 78]
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?