Block v. Gennaro's Limited Liability Company
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:21-cv-00192
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Block v. Gennaro’s Limited Liability Company, Judge Demarchi denied defendants’ motion to consolidate two accessibility-barrier lawsuits because their stages and schedules differed.
The ruling directly affected Hendrik Block, Scott Johnson, Gennaro’s Limited Liability Company, and Ganeshkrupa 86 Corporation by keeping Block’s and Johnson’s lawsuits separate.
What happened
Block v. Gennaro’s Limited Liability Company concerns Hendrik Block’s lawsuit about accessibility barriers he says he encountered at a San Jose store. The defendants identified in the opinion are Gennaro’s Limited Liability Company, which owns the property, and Ganeshkrupa 86 Corporation, which owns and operates the store.
The defendants asked the court to combine Block’s case with Scott Johnson’s later-filed disability-rights lawsuit involving the same defendants, property, and overlapping alleged barriers. Block’s case was nearly ready for trial: most fact discovery had ended and trial was set for early September 2022. Johnson’s case was at an earlier stage and apparently had not yet reached the same discovery process.
Judge Demarchi denied the motion to consolidate. The court said combining the cases could prejudice Johnson by forcing him to follow Block’s schedule, or prejudice Block by delaying his trial to accommodate Johnson. The court encouraged the parties to share useful information but did not find that combining the cases would necessarily be more efficient.
The detailed version
- Block v. Gennaro's Limited Liability Company · No. 5:21-cv-00192
- Virginia Demarchi
- Feb. 16, 2022
Background
Hendrik Block brought the action based on accessibility barriers he claims he encountered at a store in San Jose, California. The opinion states that Gennaro’s Limited Liability Company owns the real property at the relevant address and that Ganeshkrupa 86 Corporation owns and operates the store.
The defendants moved to consolidate Block’s case with a later-filed disability-rights lawsuit brought by Scott Johnson against the same defendants. The opinion identifies Johnson’s case as Case No. 5:21-cv-08102-SVK. The two cases concern the same defendants, the same property, and overlapping alleged accessibility barriers.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to join or consolidate cases involving common questions of law or fact, or to issue other orders preventing unnecessary cost or delay. The court explained that it has broad discretion to consolidate cases pending in the same district. In exercising that discretion, it weighs convenience and efficiency against possible delay, confusion, and prejudice. The parties seeking consolidation bear the burden of showing that consolidation would promote convenience and efficient use of judicial resources.
Court’s analysis
The court found that convenience and efficiency would not be served by consolidation. Johnson filed his complaint nearly nine months after Block filed his, and the cases were at entirely different stages of litigation. Johnson’s case was apparently proceeding under General Order No. 56, which includes a joint site mediation. Block’s case was already past those proceedings, except for completing certain depositions. Fact discovery had closed, subject to that limited exception, and Block’s case was set for trial in early September 2022.
The court determined that consolidation could prejudice Johnson if his case had to proceed on Block’s schedule because Johnson apparently had not had the opportunity to conduct discovery. Conversely, consolidation could prejudice Block if his trial were delayed to accommodate Johnson’s case. The court was also unpersuaded that consolidation would necessarily produce greater efficiency in discovery or at trial. The court encouraged the parties to share common information when beneficial, even though it declined to combine the cases.
Disposition
The court denied defendants’ motion to consolidate the two actions. It also vacated the February 22, 2022 hearing and decided the motion without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.