The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6 SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8 JAMES LOH, et al., Case No. 21-cv-06088-EJD
9 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING CONSOLIDATION
10 v.
11 FUTURE MOTION, INC.,
Defendant.
12
13 ISAAC JACOBSON, Case No. 21-cv-08092-EJD
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
16 FUTURE MOTION, INC.,
Defendant.
17
18 Presently before the Court are the above-captioned actions in which the respective
19 plaintiffs assert various consumer claims on behalf of putative classes and which both include
20 violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), False
21 Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ.
22 Code § 1750). Both cases allege similar defects in the motorized single-wheeled skateboards
23 manufactured by Defendant Future Motion, Inc. Broadly speaking, Defendant’s skateboards
24 appear to contain an alleged defect that causes the electric motor to shut off and wheels to lock
25 without noticeable warning, resulting in a complete halt that often throws the rider off the board.
26 The district court is authorized to consolidate actions involving common questions of law
27 or fact, which may occur either upon motion by a party or sua sponte. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); see
1 also Bartling v. Apple Inc., 2018 WL 4804735, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2018) (citing In re
2 || Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987)). It appearing that the aforementioned
3 actions may contain at least one common question of law or fact, the Court hereby orders the
4 || parties to show cause why these cases should not be consolidated for pretrial proceedings or trial.
5 || Any party opposing consolidation shall file a written statement not to exceed 10 pages by June 16,
6 || 2022. Any replies to the opposition or other statements in favor of consolidation may not exceed
7 10 pages and shall be filed no later than June 23, 2022, at which point the Court will take the
8 matter under submission. Alternatively, the parties may file a joint stipulation for consolidation
9 no later than June 16, 2022.
10 Additionally, Defendant is directed to note in its response to this Order—cither in its
11 statement or stipulation—the existence of any other related cases or proceedings pending before
12 another judge of this Court and to which it is a party. To the extent any such cases exist,
5 13 || Defendant shall also note whether consolidation with those cases may be appropriate under Rule
14 || 42¢a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
a 16 Dated: June 7, 2022.
18 aD.
EDWARD J. DAVILA
19 United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 || Case Nos.: 21-cv-06088-EJD; 21-cv-08092-EJD
OSC RE. CONSOLIDATION