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 ...