Chris Bissell, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and Honda Motor Company Limited
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion to consolidate two actions involving similar allegations against Honda and a related motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to consolidate pursuant to Rule 42(a) and denied the pending motion to dismiss as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Consolidate granted“the joint motion to consolidate is GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Huene v. U.S., weighing the benefit to judicial convenience against potential inconvenience. The order recites that the cases share nearly identical allegations, common issues, and are in similar stages, which supports the finding that consolidation is appropriate under Rule 42(a). |
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss denied as moot“Honda’s pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court Because the parties are filing an amended consolidated complaint, the existing motion to dismiss the original complaint is no longer relevant. Denying it as moot is the standard procedural response to avoid ruling on a superseded pleading. |
Briefing schedule ordered“the Court GRANTS the request to set a briefing schedule and hereby ORDERS as follows:” | agree with court The court has broad discretion to manage the docket and set deadlines for amended pleadings and subsequent motions. The schedule provided is reasonable and consistent with the parties' joint proposal. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Ninth Circuit's standard for consolidation from Huene v. U.S. It identifies the specific factors (identical allegations, common issues, similar stages) that justify the ruling. The decision to deny the motion to dismiss as moot is procedurally sound given the consolidation and amendment of the complaint.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS BISSELL, et al., individually and Case No.: 24-cv-02286-AJB-MMP on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION Plaintiffs, TO CONSOLIDATE AND DENYING 13 v. AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION 14 TO DISMISS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., 15 INC., and HONDA MOTOR (Doc. Nos. 24, 32) COMPANY LIMITED, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiffs Chris Bissell, Cindy Massey, James Orton, Chris Vucovich and Lisa 20 Kiedrowski and Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda”) jointly move to 21 consolidate this action with Alcantara, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., No. 22 3:25-cv-02376-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2025), with this action serving as the lead 23 case. (Doc. No. 32.) The parties also jointly propose a schedule governing deadlines for 24 Plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint and briefing on Honda’s anticipated 25 motion to dismiss. (Id.) 26 For the reasons stated in this Court’s Order to Show Cause Re: Consolidation (Doc. 27 No. 31), and having considered the joint motion, the joint motion to consolidate is 28 GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The benefit to judicial 1 convenience of consolidating this action with the Alcantara action outweighs the potential 2 for any inconvenience, delay, or expense that consolidation could cause, because 3 consolidation would avoid duplicative discovery and proceedings in these cases that are 4 based on nearly identical allegations, share common issues of law and fact, are in similar 5 stages of development, and are pending in the same venue. See Huene v. U.S.,743 F.2d 6 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984), on reh’g, 753 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1984) (district court “weighs 7 the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, 8 delay, or expense that it would cause”). 9 Also, having reviewed the facts and circumstances set forth in the parties’ joint 10 motion, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the request to set a briefing 11 schedule and hereby ORDERS as follows: 12 1. In light of the Joint Motion, the Order to Show Cause regarding consolidation 13 is hereby discharged. (See Doc. No. 31.) 14 2. Plaintiffs must file an amended consolidated complaint no later than 15 February 24, 2026. 16 3. Honda must answer or otherwise respond to the amended consolidated 17 complaint no later than April 10, 2026.1 If Honda files a motion to dismiss, Honda will be 18 permitted five (5) additional pages in its brief, for a maximum length of thirty (30) pages. 19 4. Plaintiffs’ opposition, if a motion to dismiss is filed, must be filed no later 20 than May 11, 2026. Plaintiffs will be permitted five (5) additional pages in their brief, for 21 a maximum length of thirty (30) pages. 22 5. Honda’s reply, if any, must be filed no later than May 26, 2026. 23 6. If a motion is filed, the Court will review the parties’ briefs and set a hearing 24 if necessary. 25 26 27 1 The Court reminds the parties to fully review and comply with the undersigned’s Civil Case Procedures 28 1 7. In light of the Joint Motion, and the forthcoming amended consolidated 2 ||complaint, Honda’s pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED AS MOOT. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: February 10, 2026 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28