Mikulsky v. Carnival Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered joint motions to consolidate four putative class action cases against Carnival Corporation involving similar privacy claims. The court granted the motions, consolidated the cases into the lead case Price v. Carnival Corporation, and set a briefing schedule for a consolidated complaint and response.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the joint motions to consolidate the four cases“Upon review of the moving papers, the record, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS Parties’ Joint Motions to Consolidate.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the broad discretion afforded under Rule 42(a) to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. The order recites that the cases involve the same defendant and similar alleged privacy violations, satisfying the statutory requirements for consolidation. |
Designating Price v. Carnival Corporation as the lead case and setting a briefing schedule“The Court DESIGNATES Price v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00236-GPC-MSB, as the lead case... The Court FURTHER ORDERS that Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint or before August 7, 2023. Defendant shall have until September 6, 2023 to respond to the consolidated complaint.” | agree with court The designation of a lead case and the setting of a briefing schedule are standard procedural measures following consolidation to manage the docket and ensure efficient litigation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural ruling. It correctly cites the relevant rule (Rule 42(a)) and a case supporting the court's discretion. The factual basis for consolidation (common defendant, similar claims) is clearly stated. There are no gaps in the reasoning for this type of order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 INDIA PRICE, individually and on behalf Case No.: 23-cv-236-GPC-MSB of all others similarly situated, 11 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 12 CASES AND SETTING BRIEFING v. 13 SCHEDULE CARNIVAL CORPORATION, 14 [ECF No. 8] Defendant. 15 ERICA MIKULSKY, individually and on Case No.: 23-cv-404-GPC-MSB 16 behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 17 Plaintiff, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 18 v. CASES AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 19 CARNIVAL CORPORATION, 20 Defendant. [ECF No. 14]
21 MARILYN HERNANDEZ, individually Case No.: 23-cv-1034-GPC-MSB 22 and on behalf of all others similarly ORDER GRANTING JOINT situated, 23 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Plaintiff, CASES AND SETTING BRIEFING 24 SCHEDULE v. 25 CARNIVAL CORPORATION, [ECF No. 24] 26 Defendant. 27 1 ARIEL OLIVER, Case No.: 23-cv-1036-GPC-MSB 2 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 3 v. CASES AND SETTING BRIEFING 4 CARNIVAL CORPORATION, SCHEDULE Defendant. 5 [ECF No. 23] 6 7 Before the Court are Parties’ Joint Motions to Consolidate the four cases above as 8 well as Parties’ Joint Motion to Set Case Deadlines. See Price v. Carnival Corp., Case 9 No. 3:23-cv-00236-GPC-MSB, ECF No. 8; Mikulsky v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 3:23- 10 cv-00404-GPC-MSB, ECF No. 14; Hernandez v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 3:23-cv- 11 1034-GPC-MSB, ECF No. 24; Oliver v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 3:23-cv-1036-GPC- 12 MSB, ECF No. 23. 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 42(a) states that “[i]f actions before the 14 court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or 15 trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any 16 other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). A district court 17 has broad discretion in determining whether or not to consolidate actions. See Southwest 18 Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 806-07 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 19 Upon review of the moving papers, the record, and the applicable law, the Court 20 GRANTS Parties’ Joint Motions to Consolidate. Review of the operative complaints 21 show that all four cases are putative class actions brought by respective Plaintiffs against 22 the same Defendant, concerning the same alleged privacy rights violations committed by 23 Defendant in relation to Carnival Corporation’s use of computer code to record 24 www.carnival.com website visitors’ electronic communications with the website. 25 26 27 1 The Court HEREBY CONSOLIDATES the four above-captioned cases. The 2 Court DESIGNATES Price v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00236-GPC- 3 || MSB, as the lead case. All subsequent filings shall occur only in the lead case. 4 The Court FURTHER ORDERS that Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint 5 or before August 7, 2023. Defendant shall have until September 6, 2023 to respond 6 || to the consolidated complaint. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: June 9, 2023 = 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23-cv-236-GPC-MSB