UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

LACV 21-07579-VAP (GJSx) Case No. Date September 27, 2021 LACV 20-06868-VAP (GJSx)  Wide Voice LLC v. Century Link Communications, LLC, MCI Communications Services LLC, and AT&T Corp. Title Wide Voice LLC v. Century Link Communications, LLC and MCI Communications Services LLC

Present: The Honorable VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Christine Chung Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONSOLIDATION (IN CHAMBERS)

On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff Wide Voice, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Century Link Communications, LLC and MCI Communications Services LLC, alleging a claim for “Collection Action Pursuant to Federal Tariff” and seeking a declaratory judgment. See Wide Voice, LLC v. Century Link Comm., LLC, No. 20-cv-6868-VAP-GJSx, Dkt. No. 1 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2020). That action is currently stayed pending action by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). See id. at Dkt. No. 47.

On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed another Complaint against the defendants named previously but adding Defendant AT&T Corp, and asserting the same claims. See Wide Voice, LLC v. Century Link Comm., LLC, No. 21-cv-7579-VAP-GJSx, Dkt. No. 1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2021).

These two cases “involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The Court is considering whether to consolidate these actions.

“[D]istrict courts have broad discretion to consolidate complaints.” Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org.,

(9th Cir. 2016). “In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, the district court ‘weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.’” Diaz v. Univ. of S. Cal., Nos. CV 20-4066-DMG (PVCx), CV 20-4107-DMG (PVCx), CV 20-4172 DMG (PVCx),

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2020) (quoting Huene v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1984), subsequent history omitted). “[C]onsolidation is inappropriate where it leads to inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party.” Ginger Root Office Assocs., LLC v. Advanced Packaging & Prod. Co., Nos. CV 07-05568 MMM (CTx), CV 08-08160 MMM (CTx),

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2010).

On the Court’s own motion, the parties to these actions are hereby ordered to show cause in writing why these two cases should not be consolidated for all purposes, including trial. In addition, the parties shall address whether the newly-filed action (No. 21-cv-7579- VAP-GJSx) should also be stayed pending action by the FCC. The parties shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than October 8, 2021. Each party’s response shall not exceed 15 pages in length.

IT IS SO ORDERED.