Liliya Ramsey v. HV Global Management Corporation, et al.; Liliya Ramsey v. HV Global Management Corporation, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 3, 2026
• Docket: 5:26-cv-04197
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 LILIYA RAMSEY, Case No. 26-cv-04197-BLF

8 Plaintiff, v. 9 HV GLOBAL MANAGEMENT 10 CORPORATION, et al.,

11 Defendants.

13 14 LILIYA RAMSEY, Case No. 26-cv-04228-BLF

15 Plaintiff, v. ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES; 16 AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO HV GLOBAL MANAGEMENT FILE A CONSOLIDATED AMENDED 17 CORPORATION, et al., COMPLAINT

18 Defendants.

20 21 On May 19, 2026, the Court related Case No. 21-cv-09955, Case No. 26-cv-04197 (the 22 “FLSA Case”), and Case No. 26-cv-04228 (the “Class Case”). The Court subsequently requested 23 that the Parties from the FLSA Case and the Class Case submit their positions on (1) whether the 24 cases should be consolidated; and (2) whether Plaintiff should file a consolidated complaint. For 25 the reasons set forth below, the Court CONSOLIDATES the above-captioned cases and DIRECTS 26 Plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint. 27 Defendants HV Global Management Corporation and MVW Services Corporation argue 1 the same parties and overlapping classes, and contain the same alleged common questions of law 2 and fact. Defendants further argue that a consolidated complaint would streamline the 3 proceedings. For her part, Plaintiff Liliya Ramsey opposes consolidation because the “two cases 4 are completely different.” While both are wage-and-hour cases, the FLSA Case is a collective 5 action arising out of federal law, and the Class Case is a class action asserting violations of state 6 law. Moreover, Plaintiff contends that removal of the state law case was improper. 7 “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . 8 consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). District courts have “broad discretion under 9 [Rule 42(a)] to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Invs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for 10 Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In determining whether or not to 11 consolidate cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the potential 12 for delay, confusion and prejudice.” Bodri v. Gopro, Inc., No. 16-cv-00232-JST, 2016 WL 13 1718217, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Zhu 14 v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010)). 15 Here, this standard favors consolidation. The two cases are pending before the same court 16 and have identical parties. The cases also define overlapping classes/collectives. Compare FLSA 17 Case, ECF No. 19 (“FLSA Compl.”) ¶ 13 (defining the collective), with Class Case, ECF No. 20 18 (“Class Compl.”) ¶ 14 (defining the proposed class). Furthermore, the cases include common 19 questions of law and fact, including the existence and legality of various workplace policies. To 20 name one example, the FLSA Case lists as a common question “[w]hether Defendants failed to 21 pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and Nationwide Collective Class members.” FLSA Compl. 22 ¶ 18.c. Similarly, the Class Case lists as a common question “[w]hether Defendants failed to pay 23 minimum wages to Plaintiff and the other class members for all hours worked.” Class Compl. 24 ¶ 17.e. The underlying factual allegations are also overlapping. For instance, Plaintiff asserts in 25 both cases that “Defendants’ failure to pay minimum wages included, inter alia, Defendants’ 26 effective payment of zero dollars per hour for hours Plaintiff and the other [proposed 27 class/collective members] worked off the clock performing work duties.” FLSA Compl. ¶ 27; ] In light of the substantial overlap between the two actions, the Court finds that 2 || consolidation is appropriate and in the interest of judicial economy. The Court further finds that 3 consolidation poses a minimal risk of delay, confusion, or prejudice. Accordingly, the Court 4 |} ORDERS as follows: 5 (1) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), the above-captioned actions are CONSOLIDATED 6 for all purposes. 7 (2) The consolidated action will be Ramsey v. HV Global Management Corporation et al., 8 and all future filings will be filed in Case No. 26-cv-04197. The Clerk of the Court 9 SHALL administratively close Case No. 26-cv-04228. 10 (3) Plaintiff SHALL file a consolidated complaint on or before July 3, 2026. 11 (4) Defendants’ deadlines to respond to Plaintiffs operative complaints are STAYED 12 pending Plaintiff's filing a consolidated complaint.

|) Dated: June 3, 2026

TH LABSON FREEMAN 16 United States District Judge

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28