Pace v. Omni Family Health

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 15, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01277
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELLEN PACE, Case No. 1:24-cv-01277-JLT-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING 13 v. AND STAYING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) 14 OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, (Doc. 9) 15 Defendant. 16 ORDER VACATING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 17 ALFRED AGUIRRE, Case No. 1:24-cv-01361-KES-CDB 18 Plaintiff, 19 ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING v. AND STAYING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. 20 R. CIV. P. 42(a) OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, 21 Defendant. 22 23 DERAY MITCHELL, Case No. 1:24-cv-01384-JLT-CDB

24 Plaintiff, 25 v. ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING AND STAYING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. 26 OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, R. CIV. P. 42(a) 27 Defendant. 28 1 SAMANTHA ABRAHAM, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01456-JLT-CDB

2 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING 3 v. AND STAYING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) 4 OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, 5 Defendant. 6 SCOTT STEVENSON, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01459-JLT-CDB 7 Plaintiffs, 8 ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING v. AND STAYING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. 9 R. CIV. P. 42(a) OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, 10 Defendant. 11 SHEILA SWEETEN, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01464-CDB 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING v. AND STAYING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. 14 R. CIV. P. 42(a) OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, 15 Defendant. 16 ANGELA MIRANDA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01473-KES-CDB 17

Plaintiff, 18 ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING 19 v. AND STAYING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, 20 21 Defendant. 22 LOIS SNELSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-01480-JLT-CDB

23 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING 24 v. AND STAYING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) 25 OMNI FAMILY HEALTH,

26 Defendant. 27 28 1 SALBADOR CORTEZ MAGANA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01488-KES-CDB

2 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING 3 v. AND STAYING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) 4 OMNI FAMILY HEALTH,

5 Defendant. 6 NINA WALL, Case No. 1:24-cv-01490-KES-CDB 7 Plaintiff, 8 ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING v. AND STAYING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. 9 R. CIV. P. 42(a) OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, 10 Defendant. 11 GOBER VILLATORO GUERRA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01492-JLT-CDB 12

Plaintiff, 13 ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING 14 v. AND STAYING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) 15 OMNI FAMILY HEALTH,

16 Defendant. 17 LATEISA WHITE, Case No. 1:24-cv-01552-KES-CDB

18 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING 19 v. AND STAYING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) 20 OMNI FAMILY HEALTH,

21 Defendant. 22 KAREN BLOOM, Case No. 1:24-cv-01574-JLT-CDB 23 Plaintiff, 24 ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING v. AND STAYING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. 25 R. CIV. P. 42(a) OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, 26 Defendant. 27 28 1 On October 20, 2024, Plaintiff Ellen Pace (“Plaintiff”) initiated an action with the filing of a 2 complaint on behalf of herself and a putative class against Defendant Omni Family Health 3 (“Defendant”). Case No. 1:24-cv-01277-JLT-CDB (“Pace”) (Doc. 1). The parties noticed the action 4 as being related to several subsequently filed actions. (Doc. 8). Pending before the Court are the 5 parties’ stipulated requests to consolidate and stay the related actions and vacate the upcoming 6 scheduling conference in the Pace action in anticipation of the parties’ filing of various motions. 7 (Docs. 9, 10).

8 Background 9 This action is one of several similar class action suits brought in or removed to this Court in 10 which Plaintiffs assert similar claims against Defendant (the “Omni actions”). See, e.g., Gober 11 Villatoro Guerra v. Omni Family Health, No. 1:24-cv-01492-JLT-CDB (“Guerra”) (Doc. 6). In 12 Guerra, the Court noted the class action complaints here and the other Omni actions allege 13 substantially similar facts and nearly identical causes of action against Defendant. Id. at 1-2 (“From 14 review of the several complaints, it appears these actions arise from a recent, alleged cyberattack 15 resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of 16 Defendant (the “Data Breach”).” The Court ordered Defendant to file a notice of related cases in 17 accordance with Local Rule 123(b) in Guerra and the identified Omni actions therein, including the 18 instant action. Id. at 3. The Court further ordered the parties in Guerra to show cause why this action 19 should or should not be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). Id. 20 On December 27, 2024, Defendant filed the notice of related cases and identified as related, 21 inter alia, the instant action. (Guerra, Doc. 8); see (Doc. 8). In addition to the instant action, 22 Defendant listed 13 cases in the Eastern District of California (Defendant noted one case, Brandon 23 Cubit v. Omni Family Health, No. 1:24-cv-01491-KES-CDB, was voluntarily dismissed), 8 in the 24 Superior Court for the County of Kern, and 1 in the Superior Court for the County of Fresno. (Doc. 8 25 at 2-4). Defendant represented that it intended to remove all cases pending in state court. Id. at 4. 26 On December 30, 2024, the parties in Guerra filed a joint status report in response to the 27 Court’s show cause order. (Guerra, Doc. 9). Therein, Defendant represents it intends to file a motion 28 to substitute the United States in the matter and all other related Omni matters. Id. at 1. The Guerra 1 parties represented that they will file in the first filed of the Omni federal actions – the instant action, 2 No. 1:24-cv-01277-JLT-CDB (“Pace”) – a joint stipulation and proposed order consolidating and 3 staying the Omni actions pending resolution of Defendant’s forthcoming motion to substitute or 4 motions to remand in Samantha Abraham, et al. v. Omni Family Health (“Abraham”), No. 1:24-cv- 5 01456-JLT-CDB (Abraham, Doc. 7) as well as Scott Stevenson, et al. v. Omni Family Health, No. 6 1:24-cv-01459-JLT-CDB (“Stevenson”) (Stevenson, Doc. 11). (Guerra, Doc. 9 at 2). 7 Subsequently, on January 9, 2025, the Abraham parties filed a jointly executed stipulated 8 request to extend the time for Defendant to oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (Abraham, Doc. 12). 9 The parties represented that the extension was necessary to allow for the entry of the consolidation 10 stipulation and completion of briefing on the pending motion to remand in Stevenson, the decision on 11 which would apply to all related cases. Id. at 2-3. The Court granted the parties’ stipulated request on 12 January 10, 2025. (Abraham, Doc. 14). 13 The Parties’ Stipulated Request to Consolidate and Stay Related Actions 14 In their pending stipulated request for order consolidating and staying the related actions, the 15 parties represent all cases arise out of the same “security incident” against Defendant, namely a data 16 breach of sensitive information that Defendant allegedly discovered on August 7, 2024. (Doc. 9 at 5- 17 9; (Doc. 1 at 2). Further, the parties stipulate these cases present common questions of fact and law, 18 and consolidation is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). (Doc. 9 at 9). 19 The actions are as follows, in order of case number: 20 1. The instant action, Ellen Pace v. Omni Family Health (the “Pace” action), Case No. 1:24- 21 cv-01277-JLT-CDB; 22 2. Alfred Aguirre v. Omni Family Health (the “Aguirre” action), Case No. 1:24-cv-01361- 23 KES-CDB; 24 3. DeRay Mitchell v. Omni Family Health (the “Mitchell” action), Case No. 1:24-cv-01384- 25 JLT-CDB; 26 4. Samantha Abraham, et al. v. Omni Family Health (the “Abraham” action), No. 1:24-cv- 27 01456-JLT-CDB; 28 1 5. Scott Stevenson, et al. v. Omni Family Health (the “Stevenson” action), Case No. 1:24-cv- 2 01459-JLT-CDB; 3 6. Sheila Sweeten, et al. v. Omni Family Health (the “Sweeten” action), Case No. 1:24-cv- 4 01464-CDB; 5 7. Angela Miranda v. Omni Family Health (the “Miranda” action), Case No. 1:24-cv-01473- 6 KES-CDB; 7 8. Lois Snelson v. Omni Family Health (the “Snelson” action), Case No. 1:24-cv-01480-JLT- 8 CDB; 9 9. Salbador Cortez Magana v. Omni Family Health (the “Magana” action), Case No. 1:24- 10 cv-01488-KES-CDB; 11 10. Nina Wall v. Omni Family Health (the “Wall” action), Case No. 1:24-cv-01490-KES-CDB; 12 11. Gober Villatoro Guerra v. Omni Family Health (the “Guerra” action), Case No. 1:24-cv- 13 01492-JLT-CDB; 14 12. Lateisa White v. Omni Family Health (the “White” action), Case No. 1:24-cv-01552-KES- 15 CDB; 16 13. Karen Bloom v. Omni Family Health (the “Bloom” action), Case No. 1:24-cv-01574-JLT- 17 CDB. 18 Id. at 5-9. 19 In their stipulated request, the parties state that they agree all of the actions1 named above 20 should be stayed to (a) “allow time for the service and removal of all the Omni actions currently 21 pending in state court,” (b) consolidation of the Omni actions, and (c) a decision on Plaintiff’s motion 22 to remand in Stevenson or on Defendant’s forthcoming motion to substitute the United States of 23 America pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, whichever the Court decides first. (Doc. 9 at 10). 24 The parties state that, to “conserve judicial resources,” they agree all deadlines in the Omni actions 25 26 1 The parties do not include the Bloom action when listing which actions should be stayed. 27 (Doc. 9 at 10). However, the Court construes from the parties’ stipulation that they intended for Bloom to be stayed along with the other cases. Additionally, the parties do not explicitly state why the 28 Bloom action should warrant separate treatment. As such, the Court presumes the parties intended for Bloom to be stayed alongside the other Omni actions. 1 should be stayed except for the deadlines relating to the completion of briefing on the Stevenson 2 motion to remand (Stevenson, Doc. 11) and on Defendant’s forthcoming motion to substitute, and the 3 Court’s decisions on both “shall be binding on all [r]elated [a]ctions.” (Doc. 9 at 10). Additionally, 4 the parties state they agree that no other plaintiffs in the Omni actions need file a motion to remand 5 and briefing need not be completed on the already-filed motion to remand in Abraham (Abraham, 6 Doc. 7). 7 The parties agree to consolidate all of the Omni actions, as well as any subsequently filed or 8 removed actions relating the Data Breach, into the instant action, absent a court order otherwise. 9 (Doc. 9 at 11). Further, they agree that “[t]he [p]arties shall file a Notice of Related Cases pursuant to 10 Civil Local Rule 123 whenever a case that should be consolidated into the Consolidated Action is filed 11 in, or removed to, this District.” Id. 12 Finally, the parties propose the following briefing schedule for the pending motion to remand 13 and Defendant’s forthcoming motion to substitute (id. at 12): 14 - Defendant’s motion to substitute: January 24, 2025 15 - Defendant’s opposition to motion to remand: February 14, 2025 16 - Plaintiffs’ opposition to motion to substitute: February 14, 2025 17 - Plaintiffs’ reply in support of remand: February 28, 2025 18 - Defendant’s reply in support of substitution: February 28, 2025 19 - Combined hearing on remand and substitution: April 14, 2025 (JLT) 20 Discussion 21 When multiple actions pending before a court involve common questions of law or fact, the 22 court may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all matters at issue in the actions; consolidate the 23 actions; and/or issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The 24 court has “broad discretion” to determine whether and to what extent consolidation is appropriate. See 25 Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Inv’rs Research Co. v. 26 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989)). “Typically, consolidation 27 is a favored procedure.” Blount v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 1:19-cv-00578-AWI-SAB, 2019 28 WL 3943872, *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2019) (citing In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers 1 Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 282 F.R.D. 486, 491 (C.D. Cal. 2012)). In deciding whether to 2 consolidate actions, the court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce 3 against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 4 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984); Single Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 5 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 6 Here, based on the parties’ stipulated representations and the Court’s review of the pleadings in 7 the Omni actions, the Court finds there are significant and substantial common issues of fact and law 8 that warrant consolidation under Rule 42(a) and Local Rule 123. Moreover, the Court agrees with the 9 parties the benefit of consolidation would reduce the burden on judicial resources, the parties, and any 10 potential witnesses, eliminate the risk of inconsistent adjudications, avoid prejudice, and allow for the 11 orderly and expeditious resolution of all cases. 12 Conclusion and Order 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The following actions are CONSOLIDATED under Rule 42(a) for all purposes: 15 a. The instant action and lead case, Ellen Pace v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24- 16 cv-01277-JLT-CDB; 17 b. Alfred Aguirre v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01361-KES-CDB; 18 c. DeRay Mitchell v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01384-JLT-CDB; 19 d. Samantha Abraham, et al. v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01456-JLT- 20 CDB; 21 e. Scott Stevenson, et al. v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01459-JLT-CDB; 22 f. Sheila Sweeten, et al. v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01464-CDB; 23 g. Angela Miranda v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01473-KES-CDB; 24 h. Lois Snelson v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01480-JLT-CDB; 25 i. Salbador Cortez Magana v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01488-KES- 26 CDB; 27 j. Nina Wall v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01490-KES-CDB; 28 1 k. Gober Villatoro Guerra v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01492-JLT- 2 CDB; 3 1. Lateisa White v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01552-KES-CDB; and 4 m. Karen Bloom vy. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01574-JLT-CDB. 5 2. All further filings in this consolidated action shall be made in lead case Ellen Pace □□□ Omr 6 Family Health, No. 1:24-cv-01277-JLT-CDB. 7 3. Any order on the motion to remand currently pending in Stevenson (Stevenson, Doc. 11) 8 shall be applicable to all consolidated actions. 9 4. The aforementioned cases are stayed pending both (1) the removal of the remaining Omni 10 actions from state court and (2) the earlier of either a decision on the Plaintiffs’ motion to 11 remand (Stevenson, Doc. 11) or a determination on Omni’s forthcoming motion to 12 substitute pursuant to the Federal Tort Claim Act under 42 U.S.C. § 233(a). 13 5. The scheduling conference in Pace, No. 1:24-cv-01277-JLT-CDB, currently set for 14 January 21, 2025 (Doc. 5), is VACATED. 15 6. The briefing schedule for the consolidated motion to remand (Stevenson, Doc. 11) and 16 Defendant’s forthcoming motion to substitute is as follows: 17 a. Defendant’s motion to substitute: January 24, 2025 18 b. Defendant’s opposition to motion to remand: February 14, 2025 19 c. Plaintiffs’ opposition to motion to substitute: | February 14, 2025 20 d. Plaintiffs’ reply in support of remand: February 28, 2025 21 e. Defendant’s reply in support of substitution: | February 28, 2025 22 f. Combined hearing on remand and substitution: April 14, 2025 23 TT IS SO ORDERED. 24 □□ Dated: _ January 14, 2025 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28