From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rano v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jan 3, 2023
C22-1652 MJP (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2023)

Opinion

C22-1652 MJP

01-03-2023

TAMMY RANO, Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING INC., Defendant.


ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION

Marsha J. Pechman, United States Senior District Judge

The Court issues this Order sua sponte after reviewing the complaint (Dkt. No. 1) and the notice of related cases (Dkt. No. 5). The Court ORDERS that this matter be consolidated for all purposes with the consolidated matter of Guy v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc., C22-1558 MJP.

Under Rule 42(a), the Court may consolidate cases that involve common questions of law or fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). The Court enjoys broad discretion in making this determination. See Inv'rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court usually considers several factors in analyzing consolidation, including judicial economy, whether consolidation would expedite resolution of the case, whether separate cases may yield inconsistent results, and the potential prejudice to a party opposing. See 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2383 (3rd ed. 2020).

Consolidation is appropriate here given that this action presents common questions of law and fact with those presented in the consolidated matter of Guy v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc. and there are substantial efficiencies to be gained by consolidation. All of the actions concern the same data breach resulting from a cyber-attack on Convergent. And the Plaintiff in this action pursues the same or similar causes of action against Convergent as the plaintiffs pursue in Guy and on behalf of an overlapping proposed class. Consolidation for all purposes will conserve party and judicial resources. And the Court is unaware of any inconvenience, delay, confusion, or prejudice that may result from consolidation. As such, the Court ORDERS that this matter be CONSOLIDATED with Guy v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc., C22-1558 MJP. All filings in this action shall be filed on the docket of the first-filed case (C22-1558) with the following caption:

LEO GUY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., Defendant.
CASE NO. C22-1558 MJP

The Clerk is directed to file this Order on the docket of C22-1652 and administratively close the action.

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.


Summaries of

Rano v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jan 3, 2023
C22-1652 MJP (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2023)
Case details for

Rano v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc.

Case Details

Full title:TAMMY RANO, Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING INC., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Jan 3, 2023

Citations

C22-1652 MJP (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2023)