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

Background

The court considered nine related cases: Tong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 24-cv-2679; Rice v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 25-cv-439; Galvez v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 25-cv-440; Rosilla v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 25-cv-441; Castano v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 25-cv-442; Riley v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 25-cv-443; Ferrer v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 25-cv-444; Qureshi v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 25-cv-446; and H.G. and Shacora Dudley v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 25-cv-447. The complaints are similar. The plaintiffs allege injuries arising from use of an Insignia 8 Qt Multi-Function Pressure Cooker, specifically Model No. NS-MC80SS9. Best Buy is named as a defendant in every case; Tong also names Midea America, Corp.

Reason for Consolidation

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, a court may consolidate cases involving common questions of law or fact. The court found that these actions involve such common questions. It concluded that consolidating them for pretrial management, discovery, and motions related to discovery would make discovery more efficient, promote orderly case management, and avoid unnecessary cost or delay. The court also found that consolidation would not cause inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice.

Order

The court ordered the cases consolidated under Rule 42 for all purposes except the proceedings specifically excluded in the order. The consolidation is limited to pretrial purposes and does not merge the cases into one case. Each case keeps its separate identity, and the parties retain their separate rights.

The following matters are not consolidated: complaints, answers, counterclaims, motions related to pleadings or pleading amendments, dispositive motions as defined by Local Rule 7.1(c)(6), motions in limine, and trials. Tong is the lead case. Unless an excluded proceeding is involved or the court orders otherwise, shared motions, submissions, and other documents must use the captions and case numbers for all nine cases and must be filed only in Tong. Documents concerning an excluded proceeding must be filed separately in the case to which that proceeding relates.

The court directed the parties in Tong to continue ongoing settlement discussions and discovery. It stayed the fact-discovery, expert-discovery, non-dispositive-motion, and dispositive-motion deadlines in the existing pretrial scheduling order until the court enters a consolidated case-management order after the defendants in all nine cases have appeared.

Disposition

Judge Dulce J. Foster ordered consolidation for pretrial purposes only. The order did not resolve the merits of any plaintiff's claims or decide liability.