Gregorio v. Green Diamond Resource Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 VINCELLE CALICA and RAYMOND CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00775-LK 11 CALICA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 12 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 GREEN DIAMOND RESOURCE COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiffs Vincelle Calica and 18 Raymond Calica to consolidate this action into Gregorio v. Green Diamond Resource Company, 19 No. 2:24-cv-00596-LK (W.D. Wash.). Neither Defendant Green Diamond Resource Company nor 20 the Gregorio plaintiffs oppose the motion. Id. at 1; No. 2:24-cv-00596-LK, Dkt. No. 19 at 2 (W.D. 21 Wash. June 27, 2024). For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion and orders the cases 22 consolidated. 23 24 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On May 9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Green Diamond in King 3 County Superior Court, asserting negligence and Washington Consumer Protection Act claims 4 based on a June 2023 data breach of Green Diamond’s systems and Green Diamond’s subsequent

5 failure to adequately notify affected individuals, including the Plaintiffs, that their private 6 information was compromised. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 5, 22–27. 7 On June 3, 2024, Green Diamond removed the case to federal district court. Dkt. No. 1. By 8 that time, two class action complaints relating to the same data breach had already been filed in 9 this Court: Gregorio v. Green Diamond Resource Company, No. 2:24-cv-00596-LK (W.D. Wash.) 10 and Valentine v. Green Diamond Resource Company, No. 2:24-cv-00620-LK (W.D. Wash.). 11 Gregorio was consolidated with Valentine on May 30, 2024. See No. 2:24-cv-00596-LK, Dkt. No. 12 16 (W.D. Wash. May 30, 2024); No. 2:24-cv-00620-LK, Dkt. No. 4 (W.D. Wash. May 30, 2024). 13 In its order consolidating Gregorio and Valentine, the Court appointed William B. 14 Federman of Federman & Sherwood and Tyler J. Bean of Siri & Glimstead LLP as interim co-

15 lead counsel for the consolidated class. No. 2:24-cv-00596-LK, Dkt. No. 16 at 2 (W.D. Wash. May 16 30, 2024); Dkt. No. 2:24-cv-00620-LK, Dkt. No. 4 at 2 (W.D. Wash. May 30, 2024). After 17 Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to consolidate this matter into Gregorio, the Court ordered 18 plaintiffs in both cases to provide “their position as to the appointment of [the same] co-lead 19 interim class counsel for what would be a newly consolidated matter.” Dkt. No. 11; No. 2:24-cv- 20 00596-LK, Dkt. No. 17 (W.D. Wash. June 20, 2024).1 All plaintiffs indicated that they did not 21 oppose the previously ordered leadership structure for counsel. Dkt. No. 13 at 1; No. 2:24-cv- 22 00596-LK, Dkt. No. 19 at 2 (W.D. Wash. June 27, 2024). 23 1 All three cases were reassigned to the undersigned judge on June 21, 2024. Dkt. No. 12; No. 2:24-cv-00596-LK, 24 Dkt. No. 18 (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2024); No. 2:24-cv-00620-LK, Dkt. No. 5 (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2024). 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: 3 (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or 4 (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “A district

5 court generally has ‘broad’ discretion to consolidate actions[.]” Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 6 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Investor’s Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of 7 Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989)). “In determining whether consolidation is warranted, 8 courts evaluate the existence of common questions of law or fact and weigh the interests of judicial 9 economy against any delay or prejudice that might result.” Burton-Curl v. Seattle Coll. Dist. S. 10 Campus, Nos. 2:22-cv-01781-LK, 2:22-cv-01772-LK, 2023 WL 3004063, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 11 19, 2023). 12 Here, both cases arise out of the same June 2023 data breach and subsequent allegedly 13 deficient notification of that breach. Although the three complaints raise different claims against 14 Green Diamond, the cases involve common questions of law and fact, including whether Green

15 Diamond was negligent in safeguarding plaintiffs’ private information and whether it violated 16 Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, compare Dkt. No. 1-1, with No. 2:24-cv-00596-LK, Dkt. 17 No. 1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2024), and No. 2:24-cv-00620-LK, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Wash. May 6, 18 2024). Principles of judicial economy therefore support consolidation. And because the cases are 19 at the same early stage in the litigation, “it does not appear that any delay or prejudice will result 20 from consolidation.” Burton-Curl, 2023 WL 3004063, at *1. Accordingly, the Court concludes 21 that consolidation is appropriate. 22 III. CONCLUSION 23 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds and ORDERS as follows:

24 1 1. Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Consolidate, Dkt. No. 10, is GRANTED. Gregorio v. 2 Green Diamond Resource Company, No. 2:24-cv-00596-LK (W.D. Wash.), and Calica 3 v. Green Diamond Resource Company, No. 2:24-cv-00775-LK (W.D. Wash.) are 4 CONSOLIDATED.

5 2. The parties are DIRECTED to file documents only in 2:24-cv-00596-LK and not in 6 2:24-cv-00775-LK. 7 3. The amended consolidated complaint that Plaintiffs filed on July 1, 2024 in 2:24-cv- 8 00596-LK, Dkt. No. 20, is hereby ORDERED to be the operative complaint in the now- 9 consolidated case 2:24-cv-00596-LK.2 10 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the remaining case, Calica v. Green Diamond 11 Resource Company, No. 2:24-cv-00775-LK (W.D. Wash.), and VACATE any case 12 management deadlines set in that case. 13 Dated this 2nd day of July, 2024. 14 A

15 Lauren King United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 2 On July 1, 2024, Plaintiffs in Gregorio filed an amended complaint in response to the Court’s order to file a 21 consolidated complaint after Valentine was consolidated into Gregorio. See No. 2:24-cv-00596-LK, Dkt. Nos. 16, 20 (W.D. Wash.). It appears that Plaintiffs filed this amended complaint under the assumption that the Court would grant 22 the instant motion to consolidate in this case, because the complaint includes the Calicas as plaintiffs. See No. 2:24- cv-00596-LK, Dkt. No. 20 at 1, 4–5, 15–19 (W.D. Wash. July 1, 2024). Although the Court acknowledges the inefficiencies of filing multiple amended complaints, the amended complaint that includes the Calicas was nonetheless 23 prematurely filed and therefore procedurally improper. The Court adopts the July 1, 2024 amended complaint as the operative complaint in this instance but reminds all parties that they should not assume that their pending motions will 24 be granted. Cf. LCR 7(j).