Wendover Productions, LLC et al v. PayPal Inc

Filing 49

ORDER GRANTING 38 JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/29/2025. (blflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2025) (Entered: 1/29/2025)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 8 WENDOVER PRODUCTIONS, LLC, et al., Case No. 24-cv-09470-BLF Plaintiffs, 9 v. 10 11 PAYPAL, INC., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendant. 12 13 ELI SILVA, et al., Plaintiffs, 14 15 16 v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al. Defendants. 17 18 GamersNexus LLC, 21 v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant. 22 23 CLAUDIA JAYNE YOUNG, Plaintiff, 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 5:25-cv-00114-BLF Plaintiff, 19 20 Case No. 5:24-cv-09510-BLF v. PAYPAL, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 5:25-cv-00124-BLF 1 SHONNA COLEMAN, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants. 5 6 9 Plaintiff, v. PAYPAL, INC, et al., 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Defendants. 14 Plaintiff, v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al., 15 16 Defendants. 19 Case No. 4:25-cv-00518-BLF EDGAR OGANESYAN, et al., 17 18 Case No. 5:25-cv-00501-BLF LYON FITNESS, LLC, 12 13 Case No. 5:25-cv-00476-BLF JOSE MORAN, 7 8 Case No. 5:25-cv-00367-BLF Plaintiffs, v. PAYPAL, INC., et al. 20 Defendants. 21 BREVARD MARKETING LLC, 22 23 Case No. 5:25-cv-00573-BLF Plaintiff, v. 24 PAYPAL, INC., et al., 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 2 1 CAMERON KING, Plaintiff, 2 3 4 v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants. 5 6 KARIN BAUER, et al., 7 Plaintiffs, 8 9 PAYPAL, INC., et al., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 14 Plaintiff, v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al., 15 16 Defendants. 19 Case No. 5:25-cv-00701-BLF VICTORIA WADE, 17 18 Case No. 5:25-cv-00668-BLF BENJAMIN KAYNE, 12 13 Case No. 5:25-cv-00580-BLF v. 10 11 Case No. 5:25-cv-00581-BLF Plaintiff, v. PAYPAL, INC., 20 Defendant. 21 Case No. 5:25-cv-00847-BLF XAVIER SMITH, 22 23 Plaintiff, v. 24 PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., 25 Defendant. 26 27 28 3 1 THE LATINA TRADWIFE, LLC, Plaintiff, 2 3 4 5 Case No. 5:25-cv-00850-BLF v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC, et al., ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 38] 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 The Court has related Silva v. PayPal, No. 5:24-cv-09510-BLF (N.D. Cal.), GamersNexus LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00114-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Young v. Paypal, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00124-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Coleman v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00367-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Moran v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00476-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Lyon Fitness v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv00501-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Oganesyan, et al. v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 4:25-cv-00518-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Brevard Marketing v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00573BLF (N.D. Cal.), King v. PayPal Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00581-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Bauer v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-580-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Kayne v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv- 14 668-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Wade v. PayPal, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-00701-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Smith v. PayPal 15 Holdings, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-00847-BLF (N.D. Cal.) and The Latina Tradewife, LLC v. PayPal 16 17 18 19 20 21 Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00850-BLF (N.D. Cal.) to Wendover Productions, LLC, et al. v. PayPal, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-9470-BLF, (N.D. Cal.) (collectively, “Related Actions”) and all cases are now assigned to the undersigned Judge. ECF 35, 39, 46, 47. Before the Court is a motion to consolidate the Related Actions, and any future related actions filed in, removed to, or transferred to this Court brought by plaintiffs in Silva v. PayPal, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-09510-BLF (N.D. Cal.), GamersNexus LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 5:25- 22 cv-00114-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Young v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00124-BLF (N.D. Cal.), 23 Coleman v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 5:25- cv-00367-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Moran v. PayPal, Inc., et al., 24 No. 5:25-cv-00476-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Lyon Fitness v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00501-BLF 25 (N.D. Cal.), Oganesyan, et al. v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 4:25-cv-00518-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Brevard 26 Marketing v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 5:25- cv-00573-BLF (N.D. Cal.) and Wendover Productions, 27 LLC, et al. v. PayPal, Inc., No. 5:24-cv09470-BLF (N.D. Cal.). ECF 38. The plaintiffs in King v. 28 PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00581-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Bauer, et al. v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 4 1 5:25- cv-580-BLF (N.D. Cal.), and Kayne v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-668-BLF 2 (N.D. Cal.) do not oppose the motion and request the Court to consolidate the actions. See King ECF 3 17; Bauer ECF 15; Kayne ECF 15. Defendants PayPal, Inc. and PayPal Holdings, Inc. (collectively, 4 “Defendants”) do not oppose the motion. ECF 44. The Court finds the motion appropriate for 5 disposition without oral argument, and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for May 8, 2025. 6 See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 7 United States District Court Northern District of California 8 I. LEGAL STANDARD 9 “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . 10 consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). District courts have “broad discretion under [Rule 11 42(a)] to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court 12 for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In determining whether or not to 13 consolidate cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the potential 14 for delay, confusion and prejudice.” Bodri v. Gopro, Inc., 2016 WL 1718217, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15 28, 2016) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F.Supp.2d 1049, 16 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010)). 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 The 15 Related Actions, which are all pending before the Court, present similar factual and 19 legal issues, as they each involve the same subject matter and are based on the same alleged wrongful 20 conduct. ECF 38 at 6. Specifically, Plaintiffs in all Related Actions bring claims against Defendants 21 alleging that Defendants’ use of the Honey browser extension misappropriated referral 22 commissions. See id. Because the cases are based on the same subject matter, arise from the same 23 nucleus of operative facts, assert similar causes of action, define similar and overlapping classes, 24 alleging similar wrongful conducts, and seeking similar remedies, the Court finds that the same 25 discovery and class certification issues will be relevant to all Related Actions. Thus, consolidation 26 will conserve judicial resources and reduce the time and cost of trying the cases separately. As such, 27 the Court finds that consolidation is appropriate and will grant the motion to consolidate all Related 28 Actions. 5 1 III. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), the above-captioned actions and any future related 3 actions filed in, removed to, or transferred to this Court are CONSOLIDATED for all 4 purposes. 5 2. The consolidated action will be captioned In re PayPal Honey Browser Extension 6 Litigation and all future filings will be filed in No. 24-9470. The Court ORDERS that 7 the Clerk of the Court administratively close Silva v. PayPal, No. 5:24-cv-09510-BLF 8 (N.D. Cal.), GamersNexus LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00114-BLF 9 (N.D. Cal.), Young v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00124-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Coleman 10 v. PayPal Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00367-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Moran v. PayPal, Inc., et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California No. 5:25-cv-00476-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Lyon Fitness v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 5:2512 cv00501-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Oganesyan, et al. v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 4:25-cv-0051813 BLF (N.D. Cal.), Brevard Marketing v. PayPal, et al., Inc., No. 5:25-cv-00573-BLF 14 (N.D. Cal.), King v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00581-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Bauer, et 15 al., v. PayPal, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-580-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Kayne v. PayPal Holdings, 16 Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-668-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Wade v. PayPal, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-0070117 BLF (N.D. Cal.), Smith v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-00847-BLF (N.D. Cal.) 18 and The Latina Tradwife, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-00850-BLF 19 (N.D. Cal.). 20 3. The Court GRANTS the parties’ request to implement a process for appointing interim 21 class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) and to set schedule for filing a 22 Consolidated Complaint: 23 a. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of this order, plaintiffs’ counsel in 24 any of the 15 consolidated Related Actions may file an individual or joint 25 application for consideration as interim class counsel. Each attorney’s individual 26 or joint application shall not exceed ten (10) pages double-spaced addressing the 27 factors set forth in Rule 23(g) and may attach or include a link to their firm 28 6 1 resume(s). Counsel may file an optional two-page double-spaced response 2 (including attachments), no later than five (5) business days from the filing 3 deadline of the initial applications. No reply briefs will be permitted. 4 b. Within forty-five (45) days following the entry of the Court’s order appointing 5 interim class counsel, the appointed interim class counsel, on behalf of all 6 plaintiffs in the consolidated Related Actions, SHALL file a Consolidated 7 Complaint. Defendants SHALL respond to the Consolidated Complaint within 8 forty-five (45) days. If Defendants respond by way of motion, Plaintiffs SHALL 9 file any opposition within forty (40) days, and Defendants SHALL file any Reply 10 within twenty-one (21) days. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Dated: January 29, 2025 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7

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?