Loh v. Future Motion, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 7, 2022
• Docket: 5:21-cv-06088
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 JAMES LOH, et al., Case No. 21-cv-06088-EJD

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING CONSOLIDATION 10 v.

11 FUTURE MOTION, INC., Defendant. 12 13 ISAAC JACOBSON, Case No. 21-cv-08092-EJD Plaintiff, 14 v. 15

16 FUTURE MOTION, INC., Defendant. 17

18 Presently before the Court are the above-captioned actions in which the respective 19 plaintiffs assert various consumer claims on behalf of putative classes and which both include 20 violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), False 21 Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. 22 Code § 1750). Both cases allege similar defects in the motorized single-wheeled skateboards 23 manufactured by Defendant Future Motion, Inc. Broadly speaking, Defendant’s skateboards 24 appear to contain an alleged defect that causes the electric motor to shut off and wheels to lock 25 without noticeable warning, resulting in a complete halt that often throws the rider off the board. 26 The district court is authorized to consolidate actions involving common questions of law 27 or fact, which may occur either upon motion by a party or sua sponte. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); see 1 also Bartling v. Apple Inc., 2018 WL 4804735, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2018) (citing In re 2 || Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987)). It appearing that the aforementioned 3 actions may contain at least one common question of law or fact, the Court hereby orders the 4 || parties to show cause why these cases should not be consolidated for pretrial proceedings or trial. 5 || Any party opposing consolidation shall file a written statement not to exceed 10 pages by June 16, 6 || 2022. Any replies to the opposition or other statements in favor of consolidation may not exceed 7 10 pages and shall be filed no later than June 23, 2022, at which point the Court will take the 8 matter under submission. Alternatively, the parties may file a joint stipulation for consolidation 9 no later than June 16, 2022. 10 Additionally, Defendant is directed to note in its response to this Order—cither in its 11 statement or stipulation—the existence of any other related cases or proceedings pending before 12 another judge of this Court and to which it is a party. To the extent any such cases exist, 5 13 || Defendant shall also note whether consolidation with those cases may be appropriate under Rule 14 || 42¢a). IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: June 7, 2022.

18 aD. EDWARD J. DAVILA 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case Nos.: 21-cv-06088-EJD; 21-cv-08092-EJD OSC RE. CONSOLIDATION