Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05707/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05707-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUCILLE OLSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION 

SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05707-PJH 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

CONSOLIDATE AND SETTING 

HEARING DATE FOR MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 25

Before the court is defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s motion to 

consolidate cases. Dkt. 25. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision without 

oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for February 15, 2017 is VACATED. Having 

read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal 

authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES the motion to 

consolidate.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits the court to consolidate cases that 

“involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 42(a). The district court 

has “broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases” before it. Investors Research 

Co. v. U.S. District Court for C.D. Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In determining 

whether or not to consolidate cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial 

convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice.” Zhu v. UCBH 

Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quotation omitted).

Experian asks the court to consolidate 171 cases assigned to a number of 

different judges in this district. However, neither Rule 42 nor the Local Rules 

contemplate reassignment of cases by one judge to another judge, unless the cases are 

Case 4:16-cv-05707-PJH Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

found to be related under Local Rule 3-12. While these cases may share a common 

legal theory, they do not appear to be related under Local Rule 3-12(c). Each case 

involves a different plaintiff and the allegedly inaccurate reporting of different accounts.

Moreover, assigning all 171 cases to a single judge would result in substantial delay and 

inconvenience, outweighing any efficiency gains from consolidation.

As to the cases assigned to the undersigned judge, the court finds that formal 

consolidation is inappropriate under the circumstances. Should these cases make it past 

the pleading stage, much of the discovery and many of the factual issues will be 

individualized. For example, showing that the reporting of each plaintiff’s debts was 

inaccurate in light of a confirmed Chapter 13 plan, and the resulting damages, if any, will 

likely require plaintiff-specific proof. 

As to Experian’s alternative request to refer the matter to the Executive 

Committee, there is no rule permitting a party to refer a matter to or to receive a ruling 

from the court’s Executive Committee, which acts on case assignments only when it 

determines to do so. Thus the request is DENIED.

However, the court does find that some coordination of the cases assigned to the 

undersigned is appropriate. In particular, the court orders that all the pending motions to 

dismiss the actions shall be heard on the same date. Accordingly, the hearing date for 

Experian’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 18) is hereby reset to March 1, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., in 

Courtroom 3, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2017

_______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-05707-PJH Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 2 of 2