Lambrix v. Tesla, Inc.

Opinion

VIRGINIA M LAMBRIX, et al., Case No. 23-cv-01145-TLT

Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. REGARDING CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS

Defendant. ROBERT ORENDAIN, Case No. 23-cv-01157-TLT Plaintiff, v.

Defendant. Case No. 23-cv-01496-TLT

Plaintiff,

v.

Defendant.

PATRICK DOYLE, Case No. 23-cv-01543-TLT Plaintiff, v.

PHILOMENA FOCHWANG NANA- Case No. 23-cv-02035-TLT ANYANGWE,

Plaintiff,

v. TESLA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 23-cv-02352-TLT ANDREW RAGONE,

Plaintiff, v. TESLA, INC., Defendant.

The Court has issued orders relating the six above-captioned cases. See ECF Nos. 21, 35, 41, and 45. On June 8, 2023, the parties filed a joint case management conference statement in which Plaintiffs indicate they intend to file a motion to consolidate the cases and Defendant states it “does not oppose consolidate[ion] of the remaining related matters.” See ECF No. 51. As such, it appears no party objects to consolidating the above cases. A court has inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets….”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides: “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). District courts have “broad discretion under [Rule 42(a)] to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Invs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In deciding whether to consolidate, a court should balance the interest of judicial 1 States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). A district court also has broad discretion to determine 2 to what extent consolidation is appropriate, Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855- 3 56 (9th Cir. 2016), and “the law is clear that an act of consolidation does not affect any of the 4 substantive rights of the parties.” J.G. Link & Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 470 F.2d 1133, 1138 5 (9th Cir. 1972). 6 Here, Plaintiffs in all six cases bring claims against Defendant under the Sherman Act, 15 7 U.S.C. § 2 for alleged (1) Monopolization of the Tesla Repair Services Market, (2) Attempted 8 Monopolization of the Tesla Repair Services Market, and (3) Attempted Monopolization of the 9 Tesla-Compatible Parts Market. Plaintiffs in the Orendain, Doyle, Nana-Anyangwe, and Ragone 10 bring an additional claim under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 for alleged Attempted 11 Monopolization of the Tesla-Compatible Parts Market. Finally, Plaintiffs in every case except 12 Doyle also bring claims under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 for alleged Unlawful Tying and the 13 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2302 for alleged Prohibited Warranty Tying. As 14 such, it appears that there are common questions of law or fact with respect to the above cases. 3 15 Given the similarity between these related cases, the parties are ORDERED to show cause 16 why the above six actions should not be consolidated. The parties shall file either a joint 3 17 stipulation regarding consolidation or response to this order to show cause, not to exceed five 18 pages, by June 23, 2023. In any such joint stipulation or response, the parties shall include a joint 19 proposed schedule through trial. In filing their joint case management statement, the parties failed 20 to meet and confer and provide the Court with any suggested dates. 22 Dated: June 9, 2023 23 Sk 25 TRINA IMPSON United States District Judge 26 27 28