Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01167/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01167-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed Question: Fed Communications Act of 1934

---

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 - 05cv1167 DMS (AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER L. LASTER, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 05cv1167 DMS (AJB)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION

FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF

FROM STAY; (2) GRANTING

MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION

AND STAY OF CASES

[Doc. No. 100]

CASE NO. 06cv0675 DMS (NLS)

[Doc. No. 6]

vs.

T-MOBILE USA, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

____________________________________

VINCENT CONCEPCION AND LIZA

CONCEPCION, on Behalf of Themselves

and All Others Similarly Situated,

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

Cingular Wireless LLC,

 Defendant.

 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Cingular Wireless’s (“Cingular”) motion

for temporary relief from stay, and consolidation and stay of cases. Cingular seeks a temporary lift

Case 3:05-cv-01167-DMS-WVG Document 109 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 5
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 - 05cv1167 DMS (AJB)

of stay in Laster v. T-Mobile, Case No. 05cv1167 DMS (AJB) (filed June 3, 2005), consolidation of

the case with Concepcion v. Cingular Wireless LLC, Case No. 06cv0675 DMS (NLS) (filed March

27, 2006), and a stay of proceedings in both actions. In the alternative, Cingular requests a stay of its

obligation to respond to the Concepcion Complaint for thirty days to bring a motion to compel

arbitration. 

Cingular filed its motion on May 25, 2006. On July 28, 2006, Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.

(“T-Mobile”) filed a Joinder-in-part and Opposition-in-part to Cingular’s motion for consolidation.

Plaintiffs in the Concepcion action filed an Opposition to the motions on August 2, 2004, and Cingular

filed its Reply Briefs on August 4, 2006. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Cingular’s

motion for a temporary lift of stay, and grants Cingular’s motion for consolidation and stay of cases.

I.

BACKGROUND

A. Laster v. T-Mobile, et al.

Laster is a class action brought by plaintiffs Jennifer Laster, Elizabeth Voorhies, and Andrew

Thompson against defendants Cingular, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, and Go Wireless. The essence

of Laster is summarized in the Second Amended Complaint, as follows: 

This case arises out of Defendants falsely advertising and undertaking the illegal and

unfair business act and/or practice of charging consumers sales tax on wireless

telecommunications devices (hereinafter cell phones) that were either advertised as

free or advertised at a discounted price where the full retail price was used to calculate

the sales tax. 

(Laster, SAC at 2 ¶ 1.)

The original Complaint contained claims against the Defendants for violations of California

Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).

On September 23, 2005, T-Mobile and Cingular filed separate motions to compel arbitration based

on arbitration clauses contained in the wireless service contracts. Thereafter, Go Wireless and

Verizon Wireless filed a joint motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a

claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). T-Mobile and Cingular joined the motion.

On November 30, 2005, this Court issued an Order denying Cingular and T-Mobile’s motions

to compel arbitration. The Court also dismissed without prejudice the unfair practices claims under

Case 3:05-cv-01167-DMS-WVG Document 109 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 - 05cv1167 DMS (AJB)

Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500, and dismissed with prejudice the CLRA claim.

Thereafter, Cingular and T-Mobile appealed the denial of their motions to compel arbitration, and

moved to stay the Laster action pending resolution of the appeal. On March 14, 2006, the Court

granted defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings pending appeal. 

B. Concepcion v. Cingular Wireless, LLC

On March 27, 2006, Plaintiffs Vincent Concepcion and Liza Concepcion filed the Concepcion

class action, naming Cingular as the sole Defendant. The essence of Concepcion is summarized in

the First Amended Complaint, as follows:

This case arises out of the Defendant’s false advertising and marketing campaign and

its deceptive business acts and practices concerning the sale of cell phones and cell

phone service plans. These practices include charging consumers sales tax on the full

retail price of cell phones that Defendant markets to the public as “free” or deeply

discounted, then providing purchasers point of sale documentation that continues to

conceal material facts and mislead consumers about the sales tax charged.

(Concepcion, FAC at 1, ¶ 1.) 

The First Amended Complaint also contains claims against Cingular for violations of

California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500, the CLRA, fraudulent concealment, and

unjust enrichment. 

II.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the parties do not oppose temporarily lifting the stay in Laster to allow

the Court to consider Cingular’s motion to consolidate and stay both actions. The stay having been

temporarily lifted, the Court next addresses whether the Laster and Concepcion actions should be

consolidated and stayed. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides the standard for consolidation of related

actions. It states, in relevant part, “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are

pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the

actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings

therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). If common questions

of fact or law exist, the court must also weigh the interests of judicial economy and convenience

Case 3:05-cv-01167-DMS-WVG Document 109 Filed 09/07/06 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 - 05cv1167 DMS (AJB)

against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice before determining whether to consolidate

the actions. Paxonet Communications, Inc. v. TranSwitch Corp., 303 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1028 (N.D.Cal.

2003). 

Cingular argues consolidation is appropriate because the cases “raise substantially similar

issues of law and fact regarding Cingular’s alleged practices of charging sales tax on the full retail

price of cellular phones that are advertised as free or discounted.” (Cingular’s Motion at 4.) Plaintiffs

concede that both cases “involve the same unlawful conduct by the Defendant and consequently

involve common issues of fact and law.” (Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Cingular’s Motion at 4.) It is

therefore undisputed that Laster and Concepcion involve common questions of fact and law. 

Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that consolidation is inappropriate because the issue on appeal in

Laster – regarding enforcement of arbitration provisions in wireless service contracts – is not an issue

that will arise in the Concepcion action; therefore, consolidating and staying the actions will result in

unfair delay and prejudice to Plaintiffs. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that unlike Laster, no

arbitration clause was incorporated in their contract. According to Plaintiffs, “[t]here is no agreement

between the Concepcions and Cingular to submit their grievances to arbitration.” (Id. at 6.) 

Cingular vigorously challenges Plaintiffs’ characterization of the issue (or lack of issue), and

points to various provisions in the parties’ service contract which refer to arbitration. According to

Cingular, the arbitration agreement is set forth fully on the back-side of the service contract in a

section entitled, “Terms and Conditions.” 

Under these disputed circumstances, it is apparent Cingular has a good faith basis for asserting

that Plaintiffs are subject to an arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the issues raised in Laster

concerning the enforceability of such arbitration agreements may well be relevant to, if not dispostive

of, any motion to compel arbitration brought by Cingular in Concepcion. The Ninth Circuit’s decision

in Laster may well streamline the issues in Concepcion, and foster the interests of judicial economy.

In addition, Cingular would be prejudiced by being required to defend two separate actions

concerning essentially the same class allegations. In contrast, Plaintiffs would not suffer comparable

harm. While Plaintiffs argue they would be “unfairly precluded from advancing their own case as a

result of” any stay, and that “[d]elay is inherently prejudicial” (Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Cingular’s

Case 3:05-cv-01167-DMS-WVG Document 109 Filed 09/07/06 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - 05cv1167 DMS (AJB)

Motion at 6), they fail to identify any particular prejudice. Surely, a stay would result in a delay of

Plaintiffs’ prosecution of the action, but any such delay would not be unfair because it would serve

the significant potential interests of judicial economy. On balance, the interests of judicial economy

outweigh any competing interests.

Finally, T-Mobile does not object to a stay of the actions pending resolution of the arbitration

appeal, but does object to “full-scale consolidation of the cases for all pre-trial and trial purposes.”

(T-Mobile’s Joinder In Part at 2.) T-Mobile points out it is not a party to the Concepcion case, and

it asserts the Defendants’ practices in Laster “regarding disclosure and assessment of the taxes at issue

differ and could lead to different results on class certification or at trial.” (Id.) A consolidated trial,

according to T-Mobile, could result in jury confusion and liability to T-Mobile based on “another

party’s practices.” (Id.) Cingular concedes the parties “may ultimately determine that separate trials

are in their best interest.” (Reply to T-Mobile’s Joinder In Part at 2.)

The concerns expressed by T-Mobile may be legitimate, but they are premature. The actions

are therefore consolidated for all purposes and stayed pending resolution of the appeal in Laster.

Consolidation of the actions is without prejudice to the parties moving for separate pretrial

proceedings or trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a) & (b).

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For these reasons, Cingular’s motion for consolidation and stay of cases is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 7, 2006. 

DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

CC: JUDGE BATTAGLIA

JUDGE STORMES

ALL PARTIES 

Case 3:05-cv-01167-DMS-WVG Document 109 Filed 09/07/06 Page 5 of 5