Tong v. Best Buy Co., Inc.et al

Background

The court addressed nine related cases: Tong v. Best Buy Co., Inc.; Rice v. Best Buy Co., Inc.; Galvez v. Best Buy Co., Inc.; Rosilla v. Best Buy Co., Inc.; Castano v. Best Buy Co., Inc.; Riley v. Best Buy Co., Inc.; Ferrer v. Best Buy Co., Inc.; Qureshi v. Best Buy Co., Inc.; and H.G. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. The complaints are similar, allege injuries arising from use of an Insignia 8 Qt Multi-Function Pressure Cooker, specifically model NS-MC80SS9, and name Best Buy Co., Inc. as a defendant. Tong also names Midea America, Corp. as a defendant.

Consolidation ruling

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, courts may consolidate cases involving common questions of law or fact. The court found that these cases share common questions and that combining them for pretrial management, discovery, and motion practice related to discovery would make discovery more efficient, promote orderly case management, and avoid unnecessary cost or delay. The court also found that this limited consolidation would not cause inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice.

The court ordered that the cases be consolidated for pretrial purposes only, with Tong serving as the lead case. The order does not consolidate the complaints, answers, counterclaims, motions related to pleadings or pleading amendments, dispositive motions, motions in limine, or trials. The cases are not merged, and each retains its separate case identity and the parties’ separate rights.

Except for the proceedings that remain separate, filings must use a caption listing all nine cases and must be filed in the Tong case. Filings concerning the separate proceedings must be made in the case to which they relate. The parties in Tong may continue settlement discussions and discovery, but the fact-discovery, expert-discovery, non-dispositive-motion, and dispositive-motion deadlines in the existing scheduling order are stayed until the court enters a consolidated case-management order after the defendants in all nine cases have appeared.

Effect of the order

The order concerns case management only. It does not resolve whether any party is legally responsible for the alleged injuries or otherwise decide the merits of the claims. Judge Dulce J. Foster signed the order as a United States magistrate judge.