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)
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?