Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00330/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00330-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

3:19-cv-00674-AJB-JLB

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARILU CALDERON, individually and 

on behalf of all other similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KATE SPADE & COMPANY, LLC, et 

al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00674-AJB-JLB

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00330-AJB-JLB

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING CONSOLIDATION 

(Doc. No. 5.); AND

(2) DENYING AS MOOT 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND TO STRIKE IN 19-

CV-00330 (Doc. No. 12)

KRISTEN SCHERTZER, on behalf of 

herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KATE SPADE & COMPANY, LLC, et 

al., 

Defendants.

Before the Court are two related cases: Calderon v. Kate Spade & Co., LLC, 3:19-

cv-00674-AJB-JLB and Schertzer v. Kate Spade & Co., LLC, No. 3:19-cv-00330-AJBJLB. In Case No. 3:19-cv-00674, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate the two cases, 

appoint Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC as interim class counsel, and set a briefing schedule. 

(Doc. No. 5.) Defendant did not oppose consolidation of the cases, but did oppose the 

Case 3:19-cv-00330-AJB-JLB Document 19 Filed 06/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:19-cv-00674-AJB-JLB

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

appointment of interim counsel, to which Calderon replied. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11.) Plaintiff 

subsequently withdrew the portion of the motion seeking appointment of Ahdoot & 

Wolfson, PC as interim class counsel. (Doc. No. 12.) In Case No. 3:19-cv-00330, 

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 

(Doc. No. 12.) 

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to 

consolidate, (Case No. 19-cv-674, Doc. No. 5), and DENIES as moot Defendant’s motion 

to dismiss and to strike, (Case No. 19-cv-330, Doc. No. 12).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated consumers 

of Kate Spade merchandise at Defendant’s Kate Spade’s outlet store alleging they relied 

upon Defendant’s false reference prices and corresponding illusory discounts in making 

their purchase. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 1, Calderon Complaint, Doc. No. 11 ¶ 8, Schertzer FAC.) 

Plaintiffs contend Kate Spade outlet merchandise are never offered for sale at the 

represented reference price. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 3, Calderon Complaint, Doc. No. 11 ¶ 5, 

Schertzer FAC.) Plaintiffs further allege Defendant’s false and misleading marketing, 

advertising, and pricing scheme, constitute a violation of California’s Unfair Competition 

Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the “UCL”), California’s False Advertising 

Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq. (the “FAL”), California’s Consumers Legal 

Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. (the “CLRA”), and the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (“FTCA”). (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 9, Calderon Complaint, Doc. No. 11 ¶ 7,

Schertzer FAC.)

II. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides: “[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.” “To determine whether to consolidate, a court weighs 

the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice 

Case 3:19-cv-00330-AJB-JLB Document 19 Filed 06/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:19-cv-00674-AJB-JLB

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

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) (quoting Sw. Marine, Inc. v. Triple 

A. Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989)). “[W]hile a district court 

does have broad discretion in determining whether consolidation is appropriate, typically, 

consolidation is favored.” Id. (quoting Perez-Funez v. Dist. Dir., I.N.S., 611 F. Supp. 990, 

994 (C.D. Cal. 1984)).

Plaintiff argues the cases should be consolidated because both “arise out of the same 

events and the same allegedly deceptive conduct by Defendant, and both of which call for 

a determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law and fact[.]”. 

(Doc. No. 5 at 5.) Accordingly, Plaintiff argues that consolidating the two cases will

promote the expeditious resolution of pleading matters, avoid duplicative motions and 

hearings, and avoid the unnecessary delay in their resolution. (Id. at 6.) Neither Defendant, 

nor Plaintiff in the Schertzer case, have objected to this consolidation. 

Upon review of the motion, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds 

consolidation is appropriate. Review of the two operative complaints show that both cases 

are asserted against the same defendant, Kate Spade & Company, LLC, and both allege 

that Defendant engaged in deceptive, misleading, and unlawful practice of advertising false 

reference prices and corresponding phantom discounts in violation of the UCL, FAL, and 

CLRA. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 9, Calderon Complaint, Doc. No. 11 ¶¶ 1, 7, Schertzer FAC.) 

Accordingly, both cases involve substantially similar factual and legal issues before this 

Court such that consolidation of the cases is in the interest of judicial efficiency. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to 

consolidate. (19-cv-00674-AJB-JLB, Doc. No. 5.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES as 

moot Defendant’s motion to dismiss and strike. (19-cv-00330-AJB-JLB, Doc. No. 12.) The 

Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), Calderon v. Kate Spade &

Co., LLC, 3:19-cv-00674-AJB-JLB and Schertzer v. Kate Spade & Co., LLC, No. 3:19-cvCase 3:19-cv-00330-AJB-JLB Document 19 Filed 06/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:19-cv-00674-AJB-JLB

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

00330-AJB-JLB are CONSOLIDATED for all purposes (the “Consolidated Action”). All 

filings by a party must be made only in the Consolidated Action and must bear the 

following caption: Calderon, et al. v. Kate Spade & Co., LLC, 3:19-cv-00674-AJB-JLB. 

2. In Case No. 19-cv-00674, the August 1, 2019 motion hearing is VACATED. 

3. In Case No. 19-cv-00330, the July 25, 2019 motion hearing is VACATED.

4. Plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint is due by July 8, 2019. 

5. Any amended motion to dismiss is due by July 22, 2019. Defendant must call 

chambers to obtain a hearing date. 

6. Any response in opposition is due by July 29, 2019.

7. Any reply is due by August 5, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00330-AJB-JLB Document 19 Filed 06/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4