Klein v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc.
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION - For the foregoing reasons, the above-captioned actions are hereby consolidated for all purposes and shall be identified and maintained as one case under Docket Number 14-CV-6402. Any other actions now pending or hereafter fil ed in this District arising out of or related to the same facts alleged in the actions being consolidated shall be consolidated with this action for all purposes, if and when the Court is apprised of them. To the extent that counsel seeks appointment as interim lead counsel, any such application must be made within thirty (30) days of this Memorandum and Order. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 6/30/2015. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
ANNA BRAYNINA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
-against-
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
14-CV-6402(JS)(AYS)
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS BUREAU, INC.
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------X
MIRIAM KLIEN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
-against-
14-CV-6690(JS)(AYS)
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS BUREAU, INC.,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------X
BASHIE LOWENBEIN and ESTHER DICK,
on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff,
-againstPROFESSIONAL CLAIMS BUREAU, INC.,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------X
14-CV-6733(JS)(AYS)
-----------------------------------X
RACHEL KLEIN, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated
consumers,
Plaintiff,
-against-
14-CV-7439(JS)(AYS)
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS BUREAU, INC.,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------X
DEVORAH GOTTLIB, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated
consumers,
Plaintiff,
-against-
15-CV-0633(JS)(AYS)
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS BUREAU, INC.,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------X
SHIMON GOTTLIEB, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly
situated consumers,
Plaintiff,
-against-
15-CV-0370(JS)(AYS)
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS BUREAU, INC.,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff
Braynina:
Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 400
Melville, NY 11747
2
For Plaintiff
Miriam Klein:
For Plaintiff
Rachel Klein:
For Plaintiffs
Lowenbein, Dick,
and Gottlib, and
Gottlieb:
For Defendant:
David Palace, Esq.
Law Offices of David Palace
383 Kingston Avenue, #113
Brooklyn, NY 11213
Maxim Maximov, Esq.
Maxim Maximov, LLP
1701 Avenue P
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Arthur Sanders, Esq.
30 South Main Street
New City, NY 10956
SEYBERT, District Judge:
On October 29, 2014, plaintiff Anna Braynina commenced
an action on behalf of herself and a putative class alleging that
defendant Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. (“PCB”) violated the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692,
et seq., when it disclosed her account number through the clear
plastic window of an envelope containing a debt collection letter.
See Braynina v. Prof’l Claims Bureau, Inc., No. 14-CV-6402.
the
filing
of
Braynina,
five
subsequent
lawsuits
Since
containing
identical allegations and claims against PCB have been reassigned
to the undersigned as related to Braynina.
See Klein v. Prof’l
Claims Bureau, Inc., No. 14-CV-6690; Lowenbein, et al. v. Prof’l
3
Claims, Inc., No. 14-CV-6733; Klein v. Prof’l Claims Bureau, Inc.,
No. 14-CV-7439; Gottlib v. Prof’l Claims Bureau, Inc., No. 15-CV0633; Gottlieb v. Prof’l Claim Bureau, Inc., 15-CV-0633.
In each
case, with the exception of Gottlieb, PCB filed a letter requesting
consolidation for purposes of discovery.1
With the exception of
the Lowenbein Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have not objected to PCB’s
request.
After considering the Lowenbein Plaintiffs’ objection
and reviewing the complaints in each of these cases, the Court
finds
that
the
cases
should
be
consolidated,
not
only
for
discovery, but for all purposes.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that
“[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or
fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all
matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or
(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a).
determining
Celotex
whether
Corp.,
899
District courts have “broad discretion” in
consolidation
F.2d
1281,
is
1284
appropriate,
(2d
Cir.
Johnson
1990),
and
v.
may
consolidate actions under Rule 42(a) sua sponte, Devlin v. Transp.
Commc’ns Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999). Rule 42(a)
is an invaluable and economizing tool of judicial administration
1
Based on a review of the docket in Gottlieb, it does not appear
that PCB has been served with the Summons and Complaint yet.
4
and should be liberally employed “to expedite trial and eliminate
unnecessary repetition and confusion.”
Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130.
In exercising its discretion, a district court must weigh the
efficiency gains against the risk of prejudice to the parties and
possible confusion of the issues.
Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1285.
Consolidation is appropriate here.
plaintiff
seeks
to
represent
the
same
To begin with, each
class
of
individuals,
alleging an identical cause of action rooted in identical factual
allegations against the same defendant.
Each complaint alleges
that PCB sent debt collection letters to consumers which disclosed
each consumer’s personal account number through the clear plastic
window of the envelope containing the letter.
Each case presents
a single, common question of law, i.e., whether this common conduct
violates Section 1692f(8) of the FDCPA.
Additionally,
judicial
economy,
the
consolidation
gains
prejudice to the parties.
of
of
which
these
cases
outweigh
any
promotes
potential
Absent consolidation, the Court faces
the possibility of six separate class actions brought on behalf of
the same class against the same defendant involving a single,
identical legal issue and overlapping evidence.
This would lead
to a substantial waste of judicial time and resources.
Moreover,
should these cases require trials, consolidation would avoid the
risk of inconsistent verdicts concerning whether PCB violated the
FDCPA.
Although the Lowenbein Plaintiffs have filed a letter
5
objecting to consolidation, counsel has not articulated any reason
why these cases should not be consolidated. Accordingly, the Court
sua sponte consolidates these actions for all purposes pursuant to
Rule 42(a).
Now that these cases have been consolidated, presumably,
the various counsel for Plaintiffs will joust for class counsel
appointment in the pre-certification stage.
Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(g)(2)(A) provides for the designation of interim lead
See FED. R. CIV. P. 23(g)(2)(A)
counsel in such a situation.
advisory committee notes. The appointment of interim lead counsel,
among other things, clarifies responsibility for the protection of
the
interests
of
the
putative
class
during
pre-certification
motions, discovery, and settlement activity.
See Manual for
Complex Litigation § 21.11 (4th ed. 2004).
To the extent that
counsel
counsel,
seeks
appointment
as
interim
lead
any
such
application must be made within thirty (30) days of this Memorandum
and Order.
In making such an application, counsel should keep in
mind that the Court considers the following factors: (a) the work
counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims;
(b) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex
litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;
(c)
counsel’s
knowledge
of
the
applicable
law;
and
resources counsel will commit to representing the class.
6
(d)
the
FED. R.
CIV. P. 23(g)(1)(A); In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litig.,
252 F.R.D. 184, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the above-captioned actions
are hereby consolidated for all purposes and shall be identified
and maintained as one case under Docket Number 14-CV-6402.
Any
other actions now pending or hereafter filed in this District
arising out of or related to the same facts alleged in the actions
being consolidated shall be consolidated with this action for all
purposes, if and when the Court is apprised of them.
To the extent
that counsel seeks appointment as interim lead counsel, any such
application must be made within thirty (30) days of this Memorandum
and Order.
SO ORDERED.
/S/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:
June
30 , 2015
Central Islip, NY
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?