UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADLEY J. HASTY, Case No. 25-cv-02662-RFL

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. CONSOLIDATE

HYATT CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 18 Defendant.

Plaintiff Bradley Hasty brought this putative class action against Defendant Hyatt Corporation in California state court alleging various state law wage, hour, and labor violations. Hyatt removed the case to federal court. Hasty now seeks to have the instant case consolidated with a case Hasty has filed against it seeking civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), captioned Hasty v. Hyatt Corp., No. 25-cv-04516-RFL. (Dkt. No. 18.) Hasty opposes consolidation. (Dkt. No. 21.) Hyatt’s motion to consolidate is GRANTED. The motion is not moot, as Hasty’s motion to remand in Hasty v. Hyatt Corp., No. 25-cv-04516-RFL has been denied. Common questions of law and fact exist due to the overlap in the factual allegations underlying both cases. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,

, 777 (9th Cir. 1989) (district courts have “broad discretion” in ruling on motions to consolidate). Furthermore, PAGA claims are regularly tried alongside or tethered to Labor Code claims. See, e.g., Guerrero v Valentino’s Rest. Holdings, Inc., No. 37-2015-030224,

, at *2 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 22, 2017) (trying Labor Code claims and PAGA claims together). Hasty does not dispute that the cases share common questions of law and fact, nor does he assert that consolidation would cause delay, confusion, or prejudice. Instead, Hasty argues that Hyatt’s motion to consolidate is procedurally defective because Hyatt did not file a notice of motion in Hasty v. Hyatt Corp., No. 25-cv-04516-RFL. (Dkt. No. 21 at 4.)' However, this procedural defect does not preclude consolidation here, where both cases are proceeding before the undersigned, who is therefore aware of the motion and its proposed effect on the two cases. Accordingly, Hasty v. Hyatt Corp., No. 25-cv-04516-RFL is consolidated with the instant case for all purposes pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All future submissions shall be filed only in Hasty v. Hyatt Corp., No. 25-cv-02662-RFL. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close Hasty v. Hyatt Corp., No. 25-cv-04516-RFL. Hasty shall file a consolidated amended complaint by January 7, 2026. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 8, 2025

RITA F. LIN United States District Judge

' All references to page numbers refer to ECF pagination.