Camus v. Sharp Healthcare
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to consolidate two putative class actions against Sharp HealthCare involving overlapping claims regarding the interception of personal health information via a website's Meta Pixel. The court granted the motion, ordered the cases consolidated under the earlier docket number, and established a new schedule for filing a consolidated complaint and responsive pleadings.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant joint motion to consolidate cases“Consequently, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motions, Case No. 22-cv-2040-MMA (DDL), ECF 10 and Case No. 23-cv-33-MMA (DDL), ECF 8, and ORDERS as follows: 1. The related cases of Hannah Cousin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sharp HealthCare, Case No. 3:22-cv-02040-MMA-DDL and Linda Camus and DeAnna Franklin-Pittman v. Sharp Healthcare, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Case No. 3:23-cv-00033-MMA-DDL are hereby consolidated for all purposes.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the broad discretion afforded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The order identifies specific common questions of law and fact (overlapping claims regarding PHI/PII interception via Meta Pixel and identical statutory claims) and balances the judicial economy benefits against potential prejudice, finding the former outweighs the latter. This is a standard and appropriate exercise of discretion. |
Vacate pending deadlines and set new schedule for consolidated complaint and response“3. All pending deadlines are hereby VACATED. 4. Plaintiffs must file a Consolidated Complaint on or before March 3, 2023. 5. Sharp must then respond to the Consolidated Complaint on or before April 3, 2023.” | agree with court Consolidation of cases with different procedural postures or pending deadlines typically requires the court to reset the schedule to ensure fairness and manage the docket. Vacating prior deadlines and setting a new, unified timeline for the consolidated complaint is a standard procedural mechanism to facilitate the consolidation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly cites the governing rule (Rule 42) and relevant Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the standard for consolidation. The court explicitly applies the balancing test by noting the overlapping claims and factual allegations, and concludes that consolidation will save time and avoid inconsistent rulings without causing significant prejudice. The reasoning is sufficient for a discretionary procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HANNAH COUSIN, individually and on Case Nos.: 22-cv-2040-MMA (DDL) 12 behalf of all others similarly situated, 23-cv-33-MMA (DDL)
Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING JOINT v. MOTIONS AND CONSOLIDATING 14 CASES SHARP HEALTHCARE, 15 Defendant. 16 LINDA CAMUS, et al., on behalf of 17 themselves and all others similarly 18 situated, 19 Plaintiffs, 20 v. 21 SHARP HEALTHCARE, Defendant. 22 23 24 25 On December 22, 2022, Defendant Sharp HealthCare (“Sharp”) removed the 26 putative class action filed by Plaintiff Hannah Cousin from the San Diego County 27 Superior Court. See Case No. 22-cv-2040-MMA (DDL). On January 6, 2023, Sharp 28 removed another putative class action, filed by Plaintiffs Linda Camus and DeAnna 1 Franklin-Pittman, to this Court. See Case No. 23-cv-33-MMA (DDL). All parties now 2 jointly move to consolidate the two cases. 3 Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f actions before 4 the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: . . . (2) consolidate the 5 actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Rule 42 seeks to provide the Court with “broad 6 discretion to decide how cases on its docket are to be tried so that the business of the 7 court may be dispatched with expedition and economy while providing justice to the 8 parties.” Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2381 (1971). A motion 9 for consolidation can be raised by a party or the Court sua sponte. See In re Adams 10 Apple, 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987). In determining whether to consolidate cases, 11 the Court should weigh “the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce” 12 against “any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Thomas Inv. 13 Partners, Ltd. v. U.S., 444 F. App’x 190, 193 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Huene v. United 14 States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984)). 15 Both actions against Sharp include overlapping claims and nearly identical factual 16 allegations. Namely, as the parties explain: 17 18 Plaintiffs in the Related Actions allege, among other things, they used Sharp’s website to transmit confidential and sensitive personal health information 19 (“PHI”) and personally identifiable information (“PII”). Plaintiffs in the 20 Related Actions also allege that the Meta Pixel was deployed on Sharp’s website. In addition, Plaintiffs in each of the Related Actions allege that their 21 PHI and PII was intercepted and transmitted to Meta without their consent. 22 23 Doc. Nos. 10 at 3, 8 at 3 (internal citations omitted). Additionally, both actions seek to 24 represent overlapping classes and involve claims for breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of 25 privacy under California’s Constitution, Art. 1 § 1, violations of the California 26 Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 56 et seq., and violations of 27 the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Pen. Code §§ 630 et seq. The Court 28 therefore agrees that consolidating these two actions will save time and effort and thus 1 || preserve judicial resources and avoid inconsistent rulings, while creating little, if any, 2 || potential for delay, confusion, or prejudice. 3 Consequently, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motions, Case No. 22-cv- 4 ||2040-MMA (DDL), ECF 10 and Case No. 23-cv-33-MMA (DDL), ECF 8, and 5 ||} ORDERS as follows: 6 1. The related cases of Hannah Cousin, individually and on behalf of all others 7 || similarly situated v. Sharp HealthCare, Case No. 3:22-cv-02040-MMA-DDL and Linda 8 || Camus and DeAnna Franklin-Pittman v. Sharp Healthcare, on behalf of themselves and 9 || all others similarly situated, Case No. 3:23-cv-00033-MMA-DDL are hereby 10 consolidated for all purposes. The Clerk of Court shall promptly take all reasonable and 11 ||necessary action to consolidate the cases. 12 2. All further proceedings in the consolidated action shall be filed and docketed 13 || under Case No. 22-cv-2040-MMA (DDL). 14 3. All pending deadlines are hereby VACATED. 15 4. Plaintiffs must file a Consolidated Complaint on or before March 3, 2023. 16 5. Sharp must then respond to the Consolidated Complaint on or before 17 || April 3, 2023. 18 6. Should Sharp file a motion, Plaintiffs must file their opposition on or before 19 || May 3, 2023. Sharp may then file its reply, if any, no later than May 24, 2023. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: January 31, 2023 22 MWMaihuk. WM - Lhiltr 23 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28