In re GEICO General Insurance Company

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTEN PEREZ, Case No. 20-cv-07436-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 58 10 GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, 11 Defendant.

13 In re GEICO General Insurance Company Case No. 19-cv-03768-HSG 16 On September 29, 2021, the parties in Perez v. GEICO Indemnity Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-07436, submitted a joint motion to consolidate the case with In Re GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-03768. Perez, Dkt. No. 58. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED.

21 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), a court may consolidate actions if they “involve a common question of law or fact.” The district court enjoys “broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Snyder v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, No. 15-cv-03049-JSC, 2016 WL 3519181, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2016) (same). In exercising this “broad discretion,” the district court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. 1 The parties in Perez v. GEICO Indemnity Company represent that a proposed settlement || pending preliminary approval in In Re GEICO General Insurance Company is a global settlement that, if approved, would resolve the claims brought in Perez v. GEICO Indemnity Company.

4 Perez, Dkt. No. 58 at 4]; see also Perez Dkt. No. 51; In re GEICO, Dkt. No. 139.

5 Having considered the parties’ joint motion and the relevant legal authorities, the Court || finds that the two cases involve common questions of law and fact. The Court also finds that consolidation of the cases for purposes of considering the proposed global settlement and, if the settlement is approved, for purposes of overseeing its implementation would save substantial time || and effort. Moreover, the Court does not anticipate that consolidation would cause significant || inconvenience, delay or additional expense.

11 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ request to consolidate the cases for purposes || of approval of the global settlement and, if approved, overseeing the implementation of the global 13 settlement. The case captioned Perez v. GEICO Indemnity Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-07436, is 14 hereby consolidated with In Re GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-03768.

3 15 The earlier filed civil action, Case No. 4:19-cv-03768, shall serve as the lead case. The clerk is 16 directed to administratively close the later-filed civil action, Case No. 4:20-cv-07436. All future 17 filings should be done in the lead case only and should be captioned “Jn Re GEICO General 18 Insurance Company”.

20 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated: 10/26/2021 2 Atauprerl 8 73 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge