Guy v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 LEO GUY, individually and on behalf CASE NO. C22-1558 MJP of all others similarly situated, 11 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, CONSOLIDATE v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, 14 INC., 15 Defendant.

16 CASE NO. C22-1562 MJP RYAN TANNER, individually, and on 17 behalf of all others similarly situated, 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., 21 Defendant.

1 CASE NO. C22-1590 MJP MAGALY GRANADOS, individually, 2 and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, 6 INC., Defendant.

CASE NO. C22-1597 MJP KERRY LAMONS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate. (Dkt. No. 9.)

Having reviewed the Motion, noted the lack of any opposition, and all supporting materials, the Court GRANTS the Motion and ORDERS that the above-captioned cases be consolidated for all purposes.

The plaintiffs in four different actions filed against Defendant Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. ask the Court to consolidate all four into a single action.

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).

4 Consolidation is appropriate here given that the four actions present common questions of law and fact and there are substantial efficiencies to be gained. All four actions concern the same data breach resulting from a cyber-attack on Convergent. And plaintiffs pursue the same or similar causes of action against Convergent on behalf of overlapping proposed classes.

8 Consolidation for all purposes will further conserve party and judicial resources. Convergent has not voiced any opposition, and the Court is unaware of any inconvenience, delay, confusion, or prejudice that may result from consolidation. As such, the Court GRANTS the Motion and consolidates all four actions.

12 All filings in this consolidated action shall be filed on the docket of the first-filed case (C22-1558) with the following caption: 14 CASE NO. C22-1558 MJP LEO GUY, individually, and on behalf 15 of all others similarly situated, 16 Plaintiff, 17 v. 18 CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., Defendant.

21 The Clerk is directed to file this Order in all four cases and then administratively close the following related cases: (1) C22-1562 MJP; (2) C22-1590 MJP; and (3) C22-1597 MJP.

23 \\ 1 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

2 Dated December 13, 2022.

A 4 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge