1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 OMAR MONTES, Case No. 23-cv-04052-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DETERMINING CASES ARE 9 v. NOT RELATED

10 CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL [Re: ECF No. 43] ASSOCIATION, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Currently pending before the Court is an Administrative Motion by defendant Capital One, 14 National Associate (“Capital One”) to consider whether cases should be related pursuant to Civil 15 Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, namely Montes v. Capital One, N.A., 4:24-cv-05677-KAW (N.D. Cal. 16 Removed Aug. 22, 2024) (“Montes II”) and Montes v. Capital One, N.A., 5:23-cv-04052-BLF (N.D. 17 Cal. Filed Aug. 10, 2023) (“Montes I”). ECF No. 43. 18 Under Civil Local Rule 3-12, an action is related to another where:

19 (1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction, or event; and 20 (2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases 21 are conducted before different Judges. 22 Civ. L.R. 3-12(a). While the allegations and defendants in the cases overlap, the Court determines 23 that the cases should not be related because doing so will not avoid “an unduly burdensome 24 duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results.” See Civ. L.R. 3-12(a)(2). 25 The parties do not dispute that the first requirement is met. See ECF No. 43 at 2-3; ECF No. 26 45 at 3. The Court agrees with the parties because, although Montes II involves two additional 27 plaintiffs, Mr. Omar Montes—a plaintiff in both Montes I and Montes II—brought the two cases 1 failure to pay promised sign-up bonuses associated with its Quicksilver and SavorOne credit cards. 2 See Pepper v. Apple Inc., No. 19-cv-3796,

, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2019). 3 Thus, the Court finds that Montes I and Montes II “concern substantially the same parties, property, 4 transaction, or event.” See Civ. L.R. 3-12(a)(1). 5 But the Court finds that the cases should not be related because the second requirement is 6 not met. Capital One argues that relating the cases would avoid duplication of labor and a risk of 7 conflicting results because there is “substantial overlap” between Montes I and Montes II as they 8 are “based on substantial similar alleged conduct by the same defendant.” ECF No. 43 at 3-4. The 9 Court disagrees. First, there is little to no risk of inconsistent judgments or rulings because Montes 10 I and Montes II involve different claims—Montes I involved only Mr. Montes’s breach of contract 11 claim while Montes II involves the plaintiffs’ false advertisement claims under California false 12 advertising laws and unfair competition claims under Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200. See Adobe 13 Sys. Inc. v. A & S Elecs., Inc., No. C 15-2288 SBA,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 14 2016) (denying motion to relate cases because the cases involved different claims); Dkt. 45 at 1-2; 15 Dkt. 26; Montes II, Dkt. 1, Ex. 1. Second, there is no risk of duplication of labor because Montes I 16 was dismissed before discovery began. Dkt. 42. Third, relating the cases would not avoid a 17 duplication of labor and expense because Montes I was dismissed before Montes II was filed, and 18 the cases were never pending in parallel. See Rezner v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank AG, No. 19 C 06-02064 JW, C 08-03479 SC,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2009) (stating there 20 was no “unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense” where allegedly related cases were 21 stayed pending mediation and closed on appeal); Carlyle Fortran Tr. v. NVIDIA Corp., No. C 05- 22 00427 JW, C 08-04634 RMW,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2008) (finding “little 23 possibility” of “unduly burdensome duplication of labor . . . or conflicting results” where the other 24 cases pending before the Court were “either on appeal before the Ninth Circuit or ha[d] been inactive 25 for over two years”). 26 Accordingly, the Court determines that Case No. 24-cv-5677 and case No. 23-cv-4052 are 27 NOT RELATED within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 3-12. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 Dated: September 5, 2024

SETH LABSON FREEMAN 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

© 15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28