Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lindsay Kamakahi, An Individual, On Behalf of v. American Society For An Executive Committee

March 13, 2012

LINDSAY KAMAKAHI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; GRANTING INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL; AND DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF Docket 48.

The parties are presently before the Court on Plaintiff Lindsay Kamakahi's 16("Plaintiff") motion to consolidate the instant action, Kamakahi v. American Society for 17 Reproductive Medicine, et al., C 11-01781-SBA ("Kamakahi"), with the related action 18 Levy v. American Society of Reproductive Medicine, et al., C 11-03803-SBA ("Levy") 19 under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. 48. Also before the Court are 20 Plaintiff's motion for appointment of interim lead class counsel under Rule 23(g) of the 21 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and motion for appointment of a three-firm Executive 22 Committee to prosecute this action. Id. No Defendant has filed an opposition. Having 23 read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully 24 informed, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to consolidate, GRANTS the motion for 25 appointment of interim lead class counsel, and DENIES the motion for appointment of a 26 three-firm Executive Committee to prosecute this action, for the reasons stated below. The 27 28 1Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. See

I. DISCUSSION 4

6 appropriate because the actions are substantially similar and raise nearly identical questions 7 of law and fact, and therefore consolidation will serve the interests of efficiency and 8 judicial economy. 9

Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 3

A. Motion to Consolidate

Plaintiff argues that consolidation of the instant action and the related Levy action is

If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may 10 consolidate the actions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). A court has broad discretion in determining 11 whether to consolidate actions pending in the same district. See Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining 13 whether or not to consolidate cases, the court should "weigh the interest of judicial 14 convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice." Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 16

17 consolidation is appropriate in light of the substantial similarity between the two actions. 18

The Plaintiff in both actions seeks to represent a class against American Society for 19

Reproductive Medicine ("ASRM") and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology 20

("SART"), and all fertility clinics and egg donor agencies that agreed to comply with 21

SART/ASRM rules regarding egg donor compensation, excluding entities located in 22

Indiana. Compl. ¶ 20, Dkt. 1; Levy action Compl. ¶ 23, Dkt. 1. In addition, both actions 23 are brought on behalf of a class consisting of all women who during the preceding four 24 years sold human eggs to any Defendant class member for assisted reproductive purposes. 25

Compl. ¶ 13; Levy action Compl. ¶ 17. Finally, both complaints assert one cause of action, 26 alleging that Defendants entered into a price fixing agreement to suppress the price paid to 27 putative class members for human egg donor services in violation of Section 1 of the 28

Having reviewed the complaints filed in both actions, the Court concludes that

1Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 106-110, Levy action Compl. ¶¶ 110-2 114. 3

4 questions of law and fact, Plaintiff's motion to consolidate is GRANTED. The Court finds 5 that consolidation will serve the interests of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.