1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARISSA LORI HERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-00228-KES-CDB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) 13 v. 14 EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 Case No. 1:25-cv-00259-KES-CDB 17 MARIA ISABELLA HERNANDEZ, III, ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 18 Plaintiff, PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) 19 v. 20 EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, 21
22 Defendant. 23 Background 24 On February 21, 2025, Plaintiff Marissa Lori Hernandez filed a complaint in this Court 25 against Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Defendant” or “Equifax”). Case No. 26 1:25-cv-00228-KES-CDB (the “Marissa Hernandez Action”) (Doc. 1). On February 28, 2025, 27 Plaintiff Maria Isabella Hernandez, III (the alleged wife of Marissa Hernandez, Plaintiff in the 28 Marissa Hernandez Action) filed a complaint in this Court against Equifax. Case No. 1:25-cv- 1 00259-KES-CDB (the “Maria Hernandez Action”) (Doc. 1). On May 21, 2025, following the 2 parties’ filing of the joint scheduling report in the earlier-filed Marissa Hernandez Action, the 3 Court found the action related to the Maria Hernandez Action, concluded the two cases involve 4 common questions of law or fact such that consolidation may be warranted, and ordered the 5 parties to these actions to file a joint report no later than May 30, 2025, in which they set forth 6 their respective positions regarding consolidation. (Marissa Hernandez Action Doc. 14). That 7 same day, the Court entered the operative scheduling order in the Marissa Hernandez Action 8 setting forth discovery, motion and pretrial and trial dates and deadlines. (Id. Doc. 15). 9 On May 30, 2025, in response to the Court’s order directing the parties to these actions to 10 file a joint report regarding the parties’ respective positions regarding consolidation, the parties 11 filed the joint report. (Id. Doc. 16). 12 Therein, Equifax requests the Court consolidate the actions for all purposes under Federal 13 Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2). (Id. at 1). Equifax contends the complaints in both actions 14 “assert the exact same alleged violations” against them and the “claims are based on the same set 15 of core facts” including that “the Plaintiffs each disputed with Equifax in June 2024 and that 16 Equifax violated the [Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”)] ‘by failing to conduct a reasonable 17 investigation of Plaintiff[s’] June 2024 Dispute, or any reinvestigation whatsoever, to determine 18 whether the disputed information was inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed 19 information.’” (Id. at 2) (citations omitted). 20 Plaintiffs (represented by common counsel in both actions) oppose Equifax’s request to 21 consolidate for all purposes, including trial, and contend Equifax “has not met its burden” in 22 “establishing that the judicial economy and convenience benefits of consolidation outweigh any 23 prejudice." (Id. at 4) (citing Single Chip Sys. Corp v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 24 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007)). Plaintiffs contend that “[t]hough both cases involve the broad issue of 25 file mixing, the specific misconduct and injury in each case differ materially” as the Marissa 26 Hernandez Action involves claims that “focus on the inclusion of inaccurate third-party data and 27 Equifax’s failure to reasonably reinvestigate her dispute” while the Maria Hernandez Action 28 alleges an “essentially empty” Equifax file “reporting no credit history at all” and also “a distinct 1 claim … asserting that Equifax impermissibly furnished a consumer report that did not accurately 2 reflect her credit history[.]” (Id.) (emphases omitted). Plaintiffs concede that “[s]hould the Court 3 find some efficiency” in consolidation, it “be limited to discovery and pre-trial proceedings[.]” 4 (Id. at 5). 5 Discussion 6 When multiple actions pending before a court involve common questions of law or fact, 7 the court may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all matters at issue in the actions; consolidate 8 the actions; and/or issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 42(a). The court has “broad discretion” to determine whether and to what extent consolidation is 10 appropriate and may undertake consolidation sua sponte. See Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 11 828 F.3d 848, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. 12 Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989)); In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 13 (9th Cir. 1987) (court may consolidate actions sua sponte). “Typically, consolidation is a favored 14 procedure.” Blount v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 1:19-cv-00578-AWI-SAB, 2019 WL 15 3943872, *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2019) (citing In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers 16 Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 282 F.R.D. 486, 491 (C.D. Cal. 2012)). In deciding whether to 17 consolidate actions, the court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce 18 against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 19 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984); Single Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F. Supp.2d 1052, 20 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 21 Here, based on the Court’s review of the pleadings in both actions and the parties’ 22 respective positions regarding consolidation in the joint report, the Court finds there are 23 significant and substantial common issues of fact and law that warrant consolidation under Rule 24 42(a) and Local Rule 123. 25 Both actions assert substantially similar facts, arising out of Equifax’s error in mixing files 26 between the Plaintiffs and that Equifax failed to conduct a reasonable investigation based on the 27 Plaintiffs’ disputes in June 2024. See (Marissa Hernandez Action Doc. 1); (Maria Hernandez 28 Action Doc. 1). Both actions allege that the Plaintiffs applied for a credit card with PenFed 1 Credit Union and were denied “based on Equifax’s reported information. (Marissa Hernandez 2 Action Doc. 1 ¶¶ 125, 129); (Maria Hernandez Action Doc. 1 ¶¶ 116, 120). 3 In addition to a common defendant in Equifax, it appears to the Court that these two 4 actions share common questions of fact and law, with both actions asserting similar causes of 5 action under the FCRA and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”). 6 (See generally id.). The relief requested in both complaints is substantially similar. (Marissa 7 Hernandez Action Doc. 1 at 31-32); (Maria Hernandez Action Doc. 1 at 32-33). Currently, both 8 actions are in a similar procedural posture, with an operative scheduling order entered in the 9 earlier-filed Marissa Hernandez Action and, at the agreement of the parties, the scheduling 10 conference vacated in the Maria Hernandez Action with a scheduling order to enter following the 11 Court’s review of the parties’ joint consolidation report. (Maria Hernandez Action Doc. 12). 12 Counsel for the parties is the same in both actions. 13 The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ claims of prejudice, confusion, and difficulty and 14 find they have failed to show consolidation of the two actions is not appropriate.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARISSA LORI HERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-00228-KES-CDB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) 13 v. 14 EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 Case No. 1:25-cv-00259-KES-CDB 17 MARIA ISABELLA HERNANDEZ, III, ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 18 Plaintiff, PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) 19 v. 20 EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, 21
22 Defendant. 23 Background 24 On February 21, 2025, Plaintiff Marissa Lori Hernandez filed a complaint in this Court 25 against Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Defendant” or “Equifax”). Case No. 26 1:25-cv-00228-KES-CDB (the “Marissa Hernandez Action”) (Doc. 1). On February 28, 2025, 27 Plaintiff Maria Isabella Hernandez, III (the alleged wife of Marissa Hernandez, Plaintiff in the 28 Marissa Hernandez Action) filed a complaint in this Court against Equifax. Case No. 1:25-cv- 1 00259-KES-CDB (the “Maria Hernandez Action”) (Doc. 1). On May 21, 2025, following the 2 parties’ filing of the joint scheduling report in the earlier-filed Marissa Hernandez Action, the 3 Court found the action related to the Maria Hernandez Action, concluded the two cases involve 4 common questions of law or fact such that consolidation may be warranted, and ordered the 5 parties to these actions to file a joint report no later than May 30, 2025, in which they set forth 6 their respective positions regarding consolidation. (Marissa Hernandez Action Doc. 14). That 7 same day, the Court entered the operative scheduling order in the Marissa Hernandez Action 8 setting forth discovery, motion and pretrial and trial dates and deadlines. (Id. Doc. 15). 9 On May 30, 2025, in response to the Court’s order directing the parties to these actions to 10 file a joint report regarding the parties’ respective positions regarding consolidation, the parties 11 filed the joint report. (Id. Doc. 16). 12 Therein, Equifax requests the Court consolidate the actions for all purposes under Federal 13 Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2). (Id. at 1). Equifax contends the complaints in both actions 14 “assert the exact same alleged violations” against them and the “claims are based on the same set 15 of core facts” including that “the Plaintiffs each disputed with Equifax in June 2024 and that 16 Equifax violated the [Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”)] ‘by failing to conduct a reasonable 17 investigation of Plaintiff[s’] June 2024 Dispute, or any reinvestigation whatsoever, to determine 18 whether the disputed information was inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed 19 information.’” (Id. at 2) (citations omitted). 20 Plaintiffs (represented by common counsel in both actions) oppose Equifax’s request to 21 consolidate for all purposes, including trial, and contend Equifax “has not met its burden” in 22 “establishing that the judicial economy and convenience benefits of consolidation outweigh any 23 prejudice." (Id. at 4) (citing Single Chip Sys. Corp v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 24 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007)). Plaintiffs contend that “[t]hough both cases involve the broad issue of 25 file mixing, the specific misconduct and injury in each case differ materially” as the Marissa 26 Hernandez Action involves claims that “focus on the inclusion of inaccurate third-party data and 27 Equifax’s failure to reasonably reinvestigate her dispute” while the Maria Hernandez Action 28 alleges an “essentially empty” Equifax file “reporting no credit history at all” and also “a distinct 1 claim … asserting that Equifax impermissibly furnished a consumer report that did not accurately 2 reflect her credit history[.]” (Id.) (emphases omitted). Plaintiffs concede that “[s]hould the Court 3 find some efficiency” in consolidation, it “be limited to discovery and pre-trial proceedings[.]” 4 (Id. at 5). 5 Discussion 6 When multiple actions pending before a court involve common questions of law or fact, 7 the court may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all matters at issue in the actions; consolidate 8 the actions; and/or issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 42(a). The court has “broad discretion” to determine whether and to what extent consolidation is 10 appropriate and may undertake consolidation sua sponte. See Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 11 828 F.3d 848, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. 12 Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989)); In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 13 (9th Cir. 1987) (court may consolidate actions sua sponte). “Typically, consolidation is a favored 14 procedure.” Blount v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 1:19-cv-00578-AWI-SAB, 2019 WL 15 3943872, *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2019) (citing In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers 16 Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 282 F.R.D. 486, 491 (C.D. Cal. 2012)). In deciding whether to 17 consolidate actions, the court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce 18 against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 19 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984); Single Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F. Supp.2d 1052, 20 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 21 Here, based on the Court’s review of the pleadings in both actions and the parties’ 22 respective positions regarding consolidation in the joint report, the Court finds there are 23 significant and substantial common issues of fact and law that warrant consolidation under Rule 24 42(a) and Local Rule 123. 25 Both actions assert substantially similar facts, arising out of Equifax’s error in mixing files 26 between the Plaintiffs and that Equifax failed to conduct a reasonable investigation based on the 27 Plaintiffs’ disputes in June 2024. See (Marissa Hernandez Action Doc. 1); (Maria Hernandez 28 Action Doc. 1). Both actions allege that the Plaintiffs applied for a credit card with PenFed 1 Credit Union and were denied “based on Equifax’s reported information. (Marissa Hernandez 2 Action Doc. 1 ¶¶ 125, 129); (Maria Hernandez Action Doc. 1 ¶¶ 116, 120). 3 In addition to a common defendant in Equifax, it appears to the Court that these two 4 actions share common questions of fact and law, with both actions asserting similar causes of 5 action under the FCRA and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”). 6 (See generally id.). The relief requested in both complaints is substantially similar. (Marissa 7 Hernandez Action Doc. 1 at 31-32); (Maria Hernandez Action Doc. 1 at 32-33). Currently, both 8 actions are in a similar procedural posture, with an operative scheduling order entered in the 9 earlier-filed Marissa Hernandez Action and, at the agreement of the parties, the scheduling 10 conference vacated in the Maria Hernandez Action with a scheduling order to enter following the 11 Court’s review of the parties’ joint consolidation report. (Maria Hernandez Action Doc. 12). 12 Counsel for the parties is the same in both actions. 13 The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ claims of prejudice, confusion, and difficulty and 14 find they have failed to show consolidation of the two actions is not appropriate. The Court 15 disagrees that Plaintiff Maria Hernandez, III, would face any inefficiency, inconvenience, or 16 unfair prejudice by virtue of her asserting a “distinct claim” that “Equifax impermissibly 17 furnished a consumer report that did not accurately reflect her credit history” (Maria Hernandez 18 Action Doc. 1 ¶¶ 129, 149-55) in a consolidated action. See, e.g., P.S. v. City of San Fernando, 19 No. CV 21-4918 PA (PVCx), 2022 WL 3016257, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2022) (fact that one 20 plaintiff’s claims involved a distinct legal theory not asserted by the other plaintiff not a basis to 21 decline consolidation). 22 Absent consolidation, the Court would anticipate addressing substantially similar issues in 23 each case involving discovery, motion practice, and pre-trial proceedings, as well as in trial itself. 24 It follows that consolidation would likely expedite the litigation, rather than cause any delay. The 25 questions presented do not evidence a high likelihood of confusion and the parties involved are 26 relatively few. The Court cannot discern any resulting prejudice to any of the parties due to 27 consolidation and, further, consolidation will avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts in related 28 cases. 1 Finally, the benefit of consolidation would reduce the burden on judicial resources, the 2 | parties, and any potential witnesses, eliminate the risk of inconsistent adjudications, avoid 3 | prejudice, and allow for the orderly and expeditious resolution of all cases. 4 Conclusion and Order 5 | Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The following actions are CONSOLIDATED under Rule 42(a) for all purposes: 7 a. The lead case, Marissa Lori Hernandez v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 8 Case No. 1:25-cv-00228-KES-CDB; 9 b. Maria Isabella Hernandez, III v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 10 1:25-cv-00259-KES-CDB. 11 2. All further filings in this consolidated action shall be made in lead case Marissa Lori 12 Hernandez v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00228-KES-CDB. 13 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close member case Maria Isabella Hernandez, Il 14 v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00259-KES-CDB; and 15 4. The case management dates of the operative scheduling order in the lead case 16 (Marissa Hernandez Action Doc. 15) shall operate in this consolidation action. 17 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 'S | Dated: _ June 4, 2025 | br Pr 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28