United States District Court, S.D. California
BRITTANY SEBASTIAN and ASHLEY LYNNE POPOWITZ, individually, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION; KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.; and KIMBERLY-CLARK GLOBAL SALES, LLC, Defendants. NASREEN HARIS, individually, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION; KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.; and KIMBERLY-CLARK GLOBAL SALES, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
William Q. Hayes NASREEN HARIS, individually, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
CORPORATION; KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.; and
KIMBERLY-CLARK GLOBAL SALES, LLC, Defendants.
THE COURT is the parties' Joint Motion to Consolidate
Related Case (3:17-CV-00442-WQH-JMA, ECF No. 25). This matter
was submitted without oral argument. The Court has reviewed
the record and files herein, and is fully informed.
March 29, 2017, Plaintiffs Brittany Sebastian and Ashley
Lynne Popowitz filed their First Amended Complaint in case
number 3:17-CV-00442-WQH-JMA. ECF No. 8.
December 8, 2017, a related action, Haris v.
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:17-CV-07016-KAW, was filed in the Northern District of
California. See 4:17-CV-07016-KAW, ECF No. 1.
January 4, 2018, Haris v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:17-CV-07016-KAW was transferred to
this Court after it was deemed related to Sebastian v.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., Case No.
3:17-CV-00442-WQH-JMA. See 4:17-CV-07016-KAW, ECF
January 8, 2018, Haris v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.,
et al. was assigned Case No. 3:18-CV-0046 and
transferred to Judge William Q. Hayes pursuant to the
Low-Number Rule. See 3:18-CV-0046-WQH-JMA, ECF Nos.
February 20, 2018, the parties jointly moved the Court to
consolidate the cases. See 3:17-CV-00442-WQH-JMA,
ECF No. 25.
Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) governs consolidation, and
states, “[i]f actions before the court involve a common
question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing
or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2)
consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to
avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a).
“The district court has broad discretion under this
rule to consolidate cases pending in the same
district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist.
Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777
(9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether to
consolidate cases, the court should “weigh the interest
of judicial convenience against the potential for delay,
confusion and prejudice.” Zhu v. UCBH Holdings,
Inc., 682 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010); see
also Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 on
reh'g, 753 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1984).
Court determines that consolidation of the Sebastian
and Haris cases is appropriate. The cases involve
the same questions of law and fact and consolidation will
reduce delay and confusion without prejudicing the parties.
Consolidation of the cases will allow the Court to hear all
dispositive motions in conjunction, expediting their
resolution. Finally, consolidation will not prejudice the
parties as both matters are in similar procedural postures,
involve the same factual allegations, present no conflicts of
interest, and because resolution of the cases together will
ensure consistency in the findings and conclusions of the