Marble et al v. HALO Innovations, Inc.

Filing 55

ORDER granting (54) Letter Motion to Consolidate Cases 23-CV-11048 (as Lead Case) with 24-CV-4371 in case 1:23-cv-11048-JGLC. For the foregoing reasons, the motion to consolidate is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to reopen bot h matters, consolidate them, and designate Marble as the lead case (given it was first filed). Any further filings relating to these actions shall be made under case number 23-CV-11048. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate ECF No. 54 (Marble) and ECF No. 14 (Bender). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke on 11/22/2024) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:23-cv-11048-JGLC, 1:24-cv-04371-JGLC (tg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AMANDA MARBLE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

23-CV-11048 (JGLC)

HALO INNOVATIONS INC.,
Defendant.
CASSIDY BENDER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
-againstHALO INNOVATIONS INC.,

24-CV-4371 (JGLC)

ORDER

Defendant.
JESSICA G. L. CLARKE, United States District Judge:
On November 1, 2024, the parties jointly filed a letter-motion requesting that the Court
consolidate Marble v. Halo Innovations, Inc., No. 23-cv-11048 (JGLC) (“Marble”) and
Bender v. Halo Innovations, Inc., No. 24-cv-4371 (JGLC) (“Bender”) for the purposes of
effectuating a class settlement. See ECF No. 54 (Marble); ECF No. 14 (Bender). The Court
has reviewed the joint letter motion, and hereby orders the consolidation of the abovecaptioned cases.
Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to consolidate cases
that “involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). In assessing
whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances,” a court “should consider both
equity and judicial economy.” Devlin v. Transp. Commc'ns Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d

Cir. 1999). District courts enjoy substantial discretion in deciding whether and to what extent
to consolidate cases and may even consolidate cases sua sponte. Id.
Here, both cases involve claims concerning HALO’s BassiNext Flex product and
related marketing campaigns. See generally Bender Compl. ¶¶ 1–37; Marble Compl. ¶¶ 1–47.
Moreover, both Marble and Bender were discontinued following a settlement in principle
reached by the parties. See Bender, ECF No. 9; Marble, ECF No. 51. There is therefore no
concern regarding, e.g., potential confusion, prejudice, or risks to impartiality of a trial. Cf.
Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284 (2d Cir. 1990). All parties support the motion,
and consolidating the cases would allow the parties to fully effectuate the settlement that has
been reached. See Kelen v. World Fin. Network Nat. Bank, 302 F.R.D. 56, 63 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
(consolidating cases for purposes of settlement where parties stipulated to consolidation, the
cases involved same legal issues, and consolidation would allow for “a more expeditious
settlement and the simultaneous and efficient resolution of all claims.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to consolidate is GRANTED. The Clerk of
Court is respectfully directed to reopen both matters, consolidate them, and designate Marble
as the lead case (given it was first filed). Any further filings relating to these actions shall be
made under case number 23-CV-11048. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate
ECF No. 54 (Marble) and ECF No. 14 (Bender).

Dated: November 22, 2024
New York, New York
SO ORDERED.

JESSICA G. L. CLARKE
United States District Judge