Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00522/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00522-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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 

 

923142.1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

CHRISTOPHER M. SULYMA, 

and all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

INTEL CORPORATION INVESTMENT 

POLICY COMMITTEE, FINANCE 

COMMITTEE OF THE INTEL 

CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 

INTEL RETIREMENT PLANS 

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, 

CHARLENE BARSHEFSKY, FRANK D. 

YEARY, JAMES D. PLUMMER, REED E. 

HUNDT, SUSAN L. DECKER, JOHN J. 

DONAHOE, DAVID S. POTTRUCK, RAVI 

JACOB, 

 Defendants, 

 and 

INTEL 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN and INTEL 

RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTION PLAN, 

 Nominal Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-04977 NC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 

CONSOLIDATE

Case 5:16-cv-00522-NC Document 5 Filed 02/18/16 Page 1 of 2
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 

923142.1 

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ joint, unopposed motion to consolidate Lo v. Intel Corp., et 

al., No. 16-cv-00522, filed in this District as a related case on January 31, 2016, with this action. 

After consideration of the motion, the response and the pertinent portions of the record, the Court 

hereby orders that the Motion is GRANTED as follows: 

1. Rule 42(a) empowers the court to consolidate “actions involving a common 

question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The two actions are brought on behalf of the Intel 

401(k) Savings Plan (“401(k) Plan”) and the Intel Retirement Contribution Plan (“Retirement 

Plan”) (together, the “Plans”) and similarly situated participants in the Plans. The actions allege 

essentially the same claims for relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

(ERISA) against almost all the same defendants. The actions are based on the same core set of 

facts. The actions allege the same classes. Because common issues of law and fact dominate these 

two cases, the Court hereby concludes that consolidation will increase the efficiency and 

manageability of these cases, and consolidates the two above-captioned actions for all purposes 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 18, 2016 ___________________________ 

Nathanael M. Cousins 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:16-cv-00522-NC Document 5 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 2