Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01882/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01882-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441nr Notice of Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CASE NO. 3:18-CV-1882-GPC-BGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP a Texas 

Limited Partnership,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO OUTLET INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-1882-GPC-BGS

ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 

CASES

[ECF No. 12.]. 

ROMA MIKHA, INC, Defendantcounterclaimant and NMRM, Inc. and 

SKYLINE MARKET, INC., third-party 

plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all 

similarly situated entities,

v.

OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP, 

Counterclaim Defendant and Third-Party 

Defendant

Case 3:18-cv-01882-GPC-BGS Document 36 Filed 11/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 CASE NO. 3:18-CV-1882-GPC-BGS

Before the Court is Defendant Roma Mikha, Inc., Midway M3, Inc., and 

Third-Party Plaintiffs NMRM, Inc. and Skyline Market, Inc.’s (collectively the 

“counterclaimants”) Motion to Consolidate this case with Outlaw Laboratory, L.P. 

v. DG in PB, LLC (“DG in PB”) (Case No. 18-cv-840-GPC-GBS), dated 

September 4, 2018 (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff Outlaw Laboratory, LP (“Outlaw”), 

has submitted a notice of non-opposition. (ECF No. 22.)

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 42(a) states 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). “To determine whether to 

consolidate, a court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential 

for delay, confusion and prejudice caused by consolidation.” In re Oreck Corp. Halo 

Vacuum & Air Purifiers Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 282 F.R.D. 486, 490 (C.D. 

Cal. 2012) (citing Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 

805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989); Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704, on reh’g, 753 

F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1984)). A district court has “broad discretion” in determining 

whether or not to consolidate actions. See id.; see also Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 

682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Southwest Marine, 720 F. Supp. 

at 806–807).

Upon review of the moving papers, the record, and the applicable law, the 

Court will grant the motion to consolidate. Review of the two operative 

complaints show that both cases are brought by the same Plaintiff, i.e., Outlaw, 

against similarly-situated defendants—i.e., retail stores accused of unlawfully 

offering for sale “sexual enhancement products” that allegedly compete with 

Outlaw’s products. Indeed, the “factual allegations” section of both of Outlaw’s 

complaints are identical; so too, are Outlaw’s descriptions of the defendants’ 

alleged bad acts. 

Case 3:18-cv-01882-GPC-BGS Document 36 Filed 11/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

CASE NO. 3:18-CV-1882-GPC-BGS

Further, both complaints state causes of action for violations of Section 

43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act. The only difference between the two complaints, 

save the defendants’ names, is that the complaint in the above-captioned matter 

also asserts two derivative state-law claims. However, because those state-law 

claims turn on the same evidence, and because the class action asserted against 

Plaintiff by the counterclaimants embrace the defendants identified in DG in PB, 

consolidation is nonetheless proper. The Court finds that this case and DG in PB

share common questions of law and fact, FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a), and that the time 

and effort saved by consolidation will outweigh “any inconvenience, delay, or 

expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 

1984). 

The motion to consolidate is GRANTED. The Court hereby consolidates 

the above-captioned case and DG in PB for all purposes under the “low numbered 

case,” Case No. 18-CV-840-GPC-BGS. All future filings must be made in No. 

18-CV-840-GPC-BGS. The motion hearing set for this matter on November 16, 

2018, is hereby vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 14, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01882-GPC-BGS Document 36 Filed 11/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3