Martinez v. LVNV Funding, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 30, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01228
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TINA MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-01228-JLT-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 13 v. PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a)

14 LVNV FUNDING LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Case No. 1:24-cv-01597-JLT-CDB 17 TINA MARTINEZ,

18 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) 19 v.

20 LVNV FUNDING, LLC, et al.,

21 Defendants. 22

23 24 Background 25 On October 10, 2024, Plaintiff Tina Martinez (“Plaintiff”) initiated an action with the filing of 26 a complaint against LVNV Funding, LLC (“LVNV”) and Credit Control, LLC. Case No. 1:24-cv- 27 01228-JLT-CDB (“Action 1228”) (Doc. 1). On December 30, 2024, Plaintiff initiated another action 28 against LVNV and a separate party, Financial Recovery Services, Inc. Case No. 1:24-cv-01597-JLT- 1 CDB (“Action 1597”) (Doc. 1). On January 3, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why 2 Action 1597 should not be dismissed as duplicative of the earlier-filed action. (Action 1597, Doc. 4). 3 On January 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response asserting that Action 1597 was not duplicative of Action 4 1228 because “it does not stem from the same nucleus of facts – different alleged debt, different letter, 5 and different asserted facts … different defendants.” (Action 1597, Doc. 5 at 2). Plaintiff stated that, 6 for these reasons, she did not believe it appropriate to seek leave to amend Action 1228. Id. 7 Discussion 8 When multiple actions pending before a court involve common questions of law or fact, the 9 court may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all matters at issue in the actions; consolidate the 10 actions; and/or issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The 11 court has “broad discretion” to determine whether and to what extent consolidation is appropriate and 12 may under take consolidation sua sponte. See Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855- 13 56 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 14 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989)); In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (court may 15 consolidate actions sua sponte). “Typically, consolidation is a favored procedure.” Blount v. Boston 16 Scientific Corporation, No. 1:19-cv-00578-AWI-SAB, 2019 WL 3943872, *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 17 2019) (citing In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 282 18 F.R.D. 486, 491 (C.D. Cal. 2012)). In deciding whether to consolidate actions, the court “weighs the 19 saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense 20 that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984); Single Chip Sys. 21 Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 22 Here, based on the Court’s review of the pleadings in both actions, the Court finds there are 23 significant and substantial common issues of fact and law that warrant consolidation under Rule 42(a) 24 and Local Rule 123. 25 Both actions assert substantially similar facts, arising out of alleged sham declarations utilized 26 by Defendant LVNV through Credit Control, LLC, and Financial Recovery Services, Inc., to collect 27 on consumer debts. See (Action 1228, Doc. 1); (Action 1597, Doc. 1). Credit Control, LLC, is further 28 alleged as majority-owned by Resurgent Strategic Investments, LLC. Id. at 26-27. Resurgent 1 Strategic Investments, LLC, and LVNV are part of an alleged larger group of roughly two dozen 2 companies all owned by a single individual, Bryan Faliero, who is president and CEO of Resurgent 3 Capital Services, LP, the entity which controls the aforementioned companies (the “Resurgent 4 entities”). Id. at 6-7. Financial Recovery Services, LLC, is alleged to be a separate company with a 5 principal place of business in Eagan, Minnesota, that also engages in consumer debt collections. 6 (Action 1597, Doc. 1 at 5). 7 In addition to a common defendant in LVNV, it appears to the Court that these two actions 8 share common questions of fact and law, with both actions asserting ten causes of action, all of which 9 arise out of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 10 and Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. See id.; (Action 1228, Doc. 1). The relief requested in both 11 complaints is identical. Id. Currently, both actions are in a similar procedural posture, with the initial 12 scheduling conference pending in each. The two counsels who have appeared in Action 1597 have 13 also appeared in Action 1228. Absent consolidation, the Court would anticipate addressing 14 substantially similar issues in each case involving discovery, motion practice, and pre-trial 15 proceedings, as well as in trial itself. It follows that consolidation would likely expedite the litigation, 16 rather than cause any delay. The questions presented do not evidence a high likelihood of confusion 17 and the parties involved are relatively few. The Court cannot discern any resulting prejudice to any of 18 the parties due to consolidation and, further, consolidation will avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts 19 in related cases. 20 Finally, the benefit of consolidation would reduce the burden on judicial resources, the parties, 21 and any potential witnesses, eliminate the risk of inconsistent adjudications, avoid prejudice, and allow 22 for the orderly and expeditious resolution of all cases. If, at some point in the future, the actions 23 change in a manner sufficient to where the parties believe they will be prejudiced, they may file a 24 motion for severance. 25 Conclusion and Order 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The following actions are CONSOLIDATED under Rule 42(a) for all purposes: 28 1 a. The lead case, Martinez v. LVNV Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01228- 2 JLT-CDB; 3 b. Martinez v. LVNV Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01597-JLT-CDB. 4 2. All further filings in this consolidated action shall be made in lead case Martinez v. LYVNV 5 Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01228-JLT-CDB. 6 3. All parties are directed to file a joint scheduling report in advance of the initial scheduling 7 conference in Martinez v. LVNV Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01228-JLT-CDB 8 set for February 12, 2025, at 9:30AM, providing consolidated dates in accordance with th 9 instructions issued by the Court. (Doc. 3). 10 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close Martinez v. LVNV Funding, LLC, et al., Case 11 No. 1:24-cv-01597-JLT-CDB. 12 |) IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DRY Dated: _ January 29, 2025 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28