DoorDash, Inc. v. City Of New York

Filing 43

ORDER: Accordingly, the three captioned cases are CONSOLIDATED for all purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to consolidate the actions with 21 Civ. 7695 as the lead case. Plaintiffs' request to appoint the three firms representing the Plaintiffs as co-lead counsel is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 1/7/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:21-cv-07695-AT, 1:21-cv-10347-AT, 1:21-cv-10602-AT (kv)

Case 1:21-cv-07695-AT Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:21-cv-07695-AT Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 3

10347, ECF No. 17; 21 Civ. 10602, ECF No. 15. Defendant consents to the consolidation. Def. Ltr.,
21 Civ. 7695, ECF No. 40; see also 21 Civ. 10347, ECF No. 19; 21 Civ. 10602, ECF No. 20.
Having considered the nature of the actions, the Court concludes that consolidation is
appropriate. “A district court can consolidate related cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
42(a) sua sponte.” Devlin v. Transp. Commc’ns Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999). Cases
may be consolidated where they involve “a common question of law or fact.” Id. (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 42(a)). A court may consolidate cases “to avoid unnecessary costs or delay,” but
“[c]onsiderations of convenience and economy must yield to a paramount concern for a fair and
impartial trial.” Stone v. Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd., 280 F.R.D. 142, 143–44 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting
Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284–85 (2d Cir. 1990) (alteration omitted)).
The Court, upon review of the complaints and the parties’ letters, finds that the cases are
substantially similar, involve common questions of law and fact, and that judicial efficiency would be
promoted by their consolidation. The cases challenge the same city ordinance and make overlapping
claims. Consolidation would also prevent the issuance of inconsistent orders concerning the same
ordinance, and there is no indication that consolidation would prejudice the parties. Furthermore,
none of the parties have objected to consolidation. The Court, therefore, finds good cause to
consolidate the actions. The matters will be consolidated for all purposes, including discovery,
motion practice, and trial.
Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint, as co-lead counsel, the firms representing each of the
Plaintiffs. Joint Ltr. at 2. The three firms note that they “are confident in their ability to work
together to achieve the efficiencies and benefits of consolidation.” Id. Defendant does not object to
the co-lead counsel arrangement but expresses concern about costs and potential discovery
inefficiences. Def. Ltr. at 2. The Court credits Plaintiffs’ counsel’s assurances and will permit the
co-lead counsel approach. See, e.g., Walker v. Deutsche Bank, AG, 04 Civ. 1921, 2005 WL 2207041,
2

Case 1:21-cv-07695-AT Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 3

at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2005). However, the Court reminds Plaintiffs that consolidation is intended,
in part, to reduce the duplication of efforts and costs. See Stone, 280 F.R.D. at 144.
Accordingly, the three captioned cases are CONSOLIDATED for all purposes pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to consolidate the actions with
21 Civ. 7695 as the lead case. Plaintiffs’ request to appoint the three firms representing the Plaintiffs
as co-lead counsel is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2022
New York, New York

3