DoorDash, Inc. v. City Of New York

Background

Three related cases were pending against the City of New York: DoorDash, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 21 Civ. 7695; Portier, LLC v. City of New York, No. 21 Civ. 10347; and Grubhub Inc. v. City of New York, No. 21 Civ. 10602. The plaintiffs challenged the same city ordinance and asserted overlapping claims. The plaintiffs jointly requested consolidation and asked that the firms representing each plaintiff be allowed to represent the plaintiffs jointly in the combined case. The City consented to consolidation and did not object to the proposed co-lead counsel arrangement, although it expressed concerns about costs and possible inefficiencies in discovery.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to combine related cases that share a common legal or factual question. The court found that these cases were substantially similar, involved common questions of law and fact, and could be handled more efficiently together. Consolidation would also reduce the risk of inconsistent orders concerning the same ordinance. The court found no indication that consolidation would prejudice any party, and no party objected.

The court also accepted the plaintiffs’ counsel’s assurances that the three firms could work together effectively as co-lead counsel. It reminded the plaintiffs that consolidation should reduce duplicated work and costs.

Ruling

The court CONSOLIDATED the three cases for all purposes under Rule 42(a), including discovery, motion practice, and trial. The Clerk was directed to use DoorDash’s case, No. 21 Civ. 7695, as the lead case. The plaintiffs’ request to appoint the three firms representing them as co-lead counsel was GRANTED. This order addressed case management and counsel arrangements; the opinion did not decide the underlying challenges to the city ordinance.