Home/E.D. California/Tash v. Vision Service Plan

Tash v. Vision Service Plan

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 14, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-00762·Unknown

Opinion

Rebekah S. Guyon (SBN 291037) Rebekah.Guyon@gtlaw.com Lori Chang (SBN 228142) ChangL@gtlaw.com David H. Marenberg (SBN 329954) MarenbergD@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Tel: 310-586-7700; Fax: 310-586-7800 Attorneys for Defendants Vision Service Plan, VSP Ventures, LLC, VSP Ventures Management Services, LLC, and VSP Ventures Optometric Solutions, LLC BRIAN TASH on behalf of himself and all CASE 2:25-CV-00762-DJC-JDP others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, AMENDED STIPULATED REQUEST FOR v. ORDER CONSOLIDATING RELATED CASES, TO SET DEADLINES FOR CONSOLIDATED VISION SERVICE PLAN a/k/a VSP PLEADINGS, AND CONTINUE OR RESET CASE GLOBAL, VSP VENTURES, LLC, VSP MANAGEMENT DATES AND RELATED VENTURES MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DEADLINES; ORDER LLC, and VSP VENTURES OPTOMETRIC Assigned to: Judge Daniel J. Calabretta Defendants.

PETER HAHN on behalf of himself and all CASE 2:25-CV-01580-DJC-JDP others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, v. VISION SERVICE PLAN a/k/a VSP GLOBAL, VSP VENTURES, LLC, VSP LLC, and VSP VENTURES OPTOMETRIC Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1), 42(a), Local Rule 144(a), and section IV of the Court’s Standing Order (ECF No. 3-1), plaintiffs Brian Tash (“Tash”), Peter Hahn (“Hahn”), and Defendants Vision Service Plan, VSP Ventures, LLC, VSP Ventures Management Services, LLC, and VSP Ventures Optometric Solutions, LLC (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate and request that the Court (1) enter an order consolidating the above-captioned action, Brian Tash v. Vision Service Plan a/k/a VSP Global et al., Case No. 2:25-CV-00762-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal. filed Mar. 6, 2025) (“Tash”), with the related action Peter Hahn v. Vision Service Plan a/k/a VSP Global et al., Case No. 2:25- cv-01580-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal. filed June 5, 2025) (“Hahn”) reassigned to this Court; (2) enter an order setting deadlines for the filing of a consolidated Complaint by plaintiffs and subsequent response by Defendants; and (3) continue or reset case management dates and related deadlines. In support of this stipulated request, the Parties state as follows: Tash filed the Complaint on March 6, 2025. ECF No. 1. Tash served Defendants with a copy of the Complaint on March 24, 2025. On April 7, 2025, the Court granted an extension of Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Complaint to June 11, 2025. On June 5, 2025, plaintiff Hahn filed the operative complaint in Hahn. Hahn, ECF No. 1. Upon learning of the Hahn action on June 6, 2025, the Parties’ counsel promptly conferred on June 6, 2025 and June 9, 2025. Defendants filed a notice of related cases in both Tash and Hahn on June 9, 2025. Tash, ECF No. 15; Hahn, ECF No. 4. On June 10, the Court granted a second extension of Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Complaint in Tash to July 11, 2025. Tash, ECF No. 17. On June 23, 2025, plaintiff Hahn filed waivers of service signed by Defendants in Hahn. Hahn, ECF Nos. 5-8. Defendants’ deadline to respond to the operative complaint in Hahn is August 18, 2025. On June 27, 2025, this Court determined that both Tash and Hahn are related cases, and Hahn was reassigned to this Court. Tash, ECF No. 18; Hahn, ECF No. 13. On June 27, 2025, counsel for the Parties met and conferred to discuss seeking consolidation of Tash and Hahn, it would serve the interests of judicial efficiency to seek an order consolidating the two actions and setting a briefing schedule for plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint and for Defendants to respond to the consolidated complaint. Counsel for Defendants have been retained to represent Defendants in Hahn and anticipate filing appearances shortly in that action. When multiple actions pending before a court involve common questions of law or fact, the court has “broad discretion” to consolidate the actions and issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); Scott v. Cnty. of Kern, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106329, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (citing Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2016)). “Typically, consolidation is a favored procedure.” Blount v. Boston Sci. Corp., 2019 WL 3943872, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2019). In deciding whether to consolidate actions, the court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Scott, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106329, at *3. This stipulation is without waiver of Defendants’ rights to challenge class certification on any basis, including, without limitation, commonality, predominance, and superiority. Nevertheless, the Parties agree and stipulate that the similarities in parties and allegations in both cases warrant consolidation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) here. The Court has determined that the cases are “related within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a)” because “[b]oth actions involve the common parties, are based on the same or a similar claim, and raise similar questions of fact and law.” Tash, ECF No. 18. Both actions involve the same Defendants, and the named plaintiffs in both actions assert claims on behalf of overlapping putative classes. Compare Tash, ECF No. 1 at 1 & ¶ 157 with Hahn, ECF No. at 1 & ¶ 73. Both actions assert claims for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq., the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Pen. Code §§ 631(a) and 638.51(a), the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 56, et seq., and the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. Compare Tash, Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 166-215, 228-57 with Hahn, Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 82-144. The named plaintiffs in both actions allege that Defendants used the “Meta Pixel” and other “Tracking Technologies” on the same alleged “Web Properties” to allegedly intercept and/or transmit the named plaintiffs’ internet communications and alleged ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1-11. The Parties agree that consolidation of Tash and Hahn would reduce the burden on judicial resources and all parties involved, eliminate the risk of inconsistent judgments, and avoid duplicative evidence and procedures. The Parties also believe that consolidation would not cause undue delay, inconvenience, or expense. Defendants have not yet filed a responsive pleading in Tash or Hahn; both Tash and Hahn are therefore at substantially the same stages of litigation. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) also allows the Court to extend deadlines for good cause shown. The Parties agree that good cause exists here. The proposed modified briefing schedule will both promote efficiency and conserve the Court’s and the Parties’ resources. Continuing or resetting case management dates set forth in the Court’s initial case management order until after Defendants have responded to the consolidated complaint will further promote efficiency and conserve judicial and party resources, as the issues to be discussed in the parties’ Rule 26(f) discovery plan—including the proposed case schedule, contested issues, and discovery procedures—may be affected by Defendants’ response to the consolidated complaint.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Tash v. Vision Service Plan, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Tash v. Vision Service Plan (Tash v. Vision Service Plan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rosemary Garity v. Apwu National Labor Org.
828 F.3d 848 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)