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.

Johnson v. Comcast of California/Colorado/Washington I, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California

August 4, 2016

MATTHEW JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA/COLORADO/WASHINGTON I, INC, Defendant. DUSTIN POOLE, Plaintiff,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. DANIEL CANADAY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. EDMUNDO ORTEGA, JR., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. JASON WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. LAMBERTO VALENCIA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. JEFFREY COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. RICHARD NELSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. CALEB DUBOIS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. GREGORY PETERS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. LUPE LANDIN, JR., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. CORY BARRETT HALL, Plaintiff,
v.
COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA, INC., et al., Defendants. FRANCISCO FLORES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. JOSEPH JOSHUA DAVIS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. JAMES K. GRIMES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. STEPHEN MCBRIDE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. LAWRENCE ELKINS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. HERNAN PAEZ, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. KRIS COOK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. KEVIN HUFFMAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER RELATING TRANSFERRED CASES; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES IN RELATED CASES; DEFERRING RULING ON WHETHER STAYED CASES ARE RELATED; AND REQUIRING STATUS REPORT RE STAYED CASES

          JEFFREY S. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         1. The Transferred Cases Are Related.

         On July 21, 2016, the Eastern District of California transferred ten cases to this Court. See Landin v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04174-JSW; Hall v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04175-JSW; Flores v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04176-JSW; Davis v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04177-JSW; Grimes v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04178-JSW; McBride v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04179-JSW; Elkins v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04180-JSW; Paez v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04181-JSW; Cook v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04182-JSW; Huffman v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04183-JSW (collectively, the “transferred cases”). By order of the Executive Committee of this Court, all ten cases were assigned to the undersigned.

         On January 15, 2016, the Eastern District of California had ordered that these ten transferred cases were related to each other within the meaning of Eastern District of California Local Rule 123(a). Following transfer of the ten cases to this Court, Plaintiffs filed a motion to relate the ten cases to eight related cases already pending before the undersigned: Canaday v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04648-JSW; Ortega v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04676-JSW; Williams v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04732-JSW; Valencia v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04771-JSW; Coleman v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04782-JSW; Nelson v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04793-JSW; DuBois v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04809-JSW; and Peters v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04869-JSW. Defendants responded that they do not believe that the cases meet the definition set forth in Civil Local Rule 3-12(a), but that they have no objection to coordination of the cases for purposes of discovery or deciding common legal issues.

         Upon review of the record, the Court finds that each of the ten transferred cases IS RELATED to Canaday v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04648-JSW, and all other cases related to Canaday, as defined by Civil Local Rule 3-12. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to relate the cases. Because the cases are already assigned to the undersigned, further reassignment is not necessary.

         2. The Court Continues the Case Management Conferences in the Related Cases.

         Case management conferences in all eighteen related cases are currently scheduled for September 9, 2016, at 11:00 a.m. On August 1 and 2, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order in the ten transferred cases only, requesting that the case management conferences in the ten transferred cases be moved to September 23, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. The Court GRANTS this request. The initial case management conferences in the following cases are HEREBY RESCHEDULED to September 23, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.: Landin v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04174-JSW; Hall v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04175-JSW; Flores v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04176-JSW; Davis v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04177-JSW; Grimes v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04178-JSW; McBride v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04179-JSW; Elkins v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04180-JSW; Paez v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04181-JSW; Cook v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04182-JSW; Huffman v. Comcast Corp., 16-cv-04183-JSW.

         Additionally, the Court sua sponte RESCHEDULES the further case management conferences in the other eight related cases to September 23, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. See Canaday v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04648-JSW; Ortega v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04676-JSW; Williams v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04732-JSW; Valencia v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04771-JSW; Coleman v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04782-JSW; Nelson v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04793-JSW; DuBois v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04809-JSW; and Peters v. Comcast Corp., 15-cv-04869-JSW.

         The joint case management statement in each of the related cases is due September 16, 2016. The parties are encouraged to file a single joint case management statement in all of the related cases, which may have separate subsections for case-specific topics. The parties may also file case-specific joint statements as necessary. If the parties file the same case management statement in multiple cases, the parties should file only a single chambers copy, not a duplicate chambers copy for each case.

         3. The Court Defers Ruling on Whether the Stayed Cases Are Related.

         On July 13, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to consider whether two additional cases, Johnson v. Comcast of California/Colorado/Washington I, Inc., No. 10-cv-04147-JSW, and Poole v. Comcast Corporation, No. 13-cv-03772-JSW, are related to Canaday and all other cases related to Canaday. Johnson and Poole are stayed pending final resolution of Fayerweather v. Comcast Corporation and Comcast of Contra Costa, Inc., Superior Court of California in and for Contra Costa County No. C-08-01470. The parties in Johnson and Poole have been ordered to submit status reports to this court every 120 days.

         In response to the Court’s order, the parties request that the stay o fJohnson and Poole remain in place for sixty days, to permit the parties to discuss voluntary resolution of these two cases. The parties request that the Court defer addressing the question of whether Johnson and Poole should be related to Canaday and all other cases related to Canaday while the stay remains in place. The Court GRANTS this request.

         4. The Parties Shall File a Further Status Report in the Stayed Cases.

         The parties in Johnson and Poole SHALL file a further joint status report no later than October 3, 2016. In addition to any other issues that the parties may address in the joint status report, the parties shall address: (1) whether Johnson and Poole should be related to Canaday and all other ...


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.