Guy v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 JENNIFER MARIE WHITE, CASE NO. C23-182 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION 12 v. 13 CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING INC., 14 Defendant. 15

16 The Court issues this Order sua sponte after reviewing the complaint (Dkt. No. 1). The 17 Court ORDERS that this matter be consolidated for all purposes with the consolidated matter of 18 Guy v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc., C22-1558 MJP. 19 Under Rule 42(a), the Court may consolidate cases that involve common questions of law 20 or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The Court enjoys broad discretion in making this determination. 21 See Inv'rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 22 1989). The Court usually considers several factors in analyzing consolidation, including judicial 23 economy, whether consolidation would expedite resolution of the case, whether separate cases 24 1 may yield inconsistent results, and the potential prejudice to a party opposing. See 9 Charles 2 Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2383 (3rd ed. 2020). 3 Consolidation is appropriate here given that this action presents common questions of law 4 and fact with those presented in the consolidated matter of Guy v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc.

5 and there are substantial efficiencies to be gained by consolidation. This action and the 6 consolidated Guy action concern the same data breach resulting from a cyber-attack on 7 Convergent. And the Plaintiff in this action pursues the same or similar causes of action against 8 Convergent as the plaintiffs pursue in Guy and on behalf of an overlapping proposed class. 9 Consolidation for all purposes will conserve party and judicial resources. And the Court is 10 unaware of any inconvenience, delay, confusion, or prejudice that may result from consolidation. 11 As such, the Court ORDERS that this matter be CONSOLIDATED with Guy v. Convergent 12 Outsourcing Inc., C22-1558 MJP. All filings in this action shall be filed on the docket of the 13 first-filed case (C22-1558) with the following caption: 14 CASE NO. C22-1558 MJP LEO GUY, individually, and on behalf 15 of all others similarly situated,

16 Plaintiff,

17 v.

18 CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., 19 Defendant. 20 21 The Clerk is directed to file this Order on the docket of C23-182 and administratively 22 close the action. 23 \\ 24 1 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 2 Dated February 9, 2023. A 3 4 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23