Opinion
CV-22-00455-TUC-JCH
10-06-2022
DD IP Holder LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ram Donuts Incorporated, Defendant.
ORDER
John C, Hinderaker United States District Judge
Before the Court is the parties' Stipulated Motion to Consolidate Related Case ("Stipulation") under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). (Doc. 9.) Specifically, Plaintiffs DD IP Holder and BR IP Holder LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Defendant Ram Donuts, Inc. ("Ram Donuts") jointly move the Court to consolidate this action (the "Instant Action") with the action currently pending before Magistrate Judge Lynnette C Kimmins in Ram Donuts, Inc. v. Dunkin' Donuts Franchising LLC et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00433-LCK (the "Pending Action"). Id. Parties avow that the Instant Action and the Pending Action involve common questions of law and fact, as both arise out of the same two franchise agreements between Ram Donuts and Plaintiffs' affiliates, Dunkin' Donuts Franchising LLC and Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to consolidate cases "[i]f the actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). District courts, however, "enjoy substantial discretion in deciding whether and to what extent to consolidate cases." Hall v. Hall, 138 S.Ct. 1118, 1131 (2018). A court "must balance the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice that may result from such consolidation." Sapiro v. Sunstone HotelInv'rs, L.L.C., No. CV-03-1555-PHX-SRB, 2006 WL 898155, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 4, 2006).
Local Rule of Civil Procedure ("LRCiv") 42.1(a) allows consolidation if the cases: (1) arise from substantially the same transaction or event; (2) involve substantially the same parties or property; (3) involve the same patent, trademark, or copyright; (4) call for determination of substantially the same questions of law; or (5) ... [remaining unconsolidated] would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different Judges. LRCiv 42.1(a). The Court considers these factors, but "has broad discretion in deciding a motion to transfer under Local Rule 42.1(a)." Addington v. U.S. Airline Pilots Ass'n, No. CV-08-01633-PHX-NVW, 2010 WL 4117216, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 19, 2010). When considering a motion under Local Rule 42.1(a), "[a] principal factor is whether party economy or judicial economy is substantially served by transfer to another judge." City of Phoenix v. First State Ins. Co., No. CV-15-00511-PHX-NVW, 2016 WL 4591906, at *20 (D. Ariz. Sept. 2, 2016), affd, No. 16-16767, 2018 WL 1616011 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2018).
The Pending Action, removed to federal court on September 22, 2022, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief related to whether Defendants Dunkin' Donuts Franchising LLC and Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC effectively terminated two franchise agreements: (1) the "Grant Road Franchise Agreement" entered into between RDI and Defendants on August 19, 2014; and (2) the "Uof A Franchise Agreement" entered into between RDI and Defendants on the same date. Ram Donuts, Inc. v. Dunkin' Donuts Franchising LLC et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00433-LCK, Doc. 1-3 at ¶¶ 9-24. Defendants filed an Answer and Counterclaim on September 30, 2022. Id. at Doc. 7. On October 5, 2022, the parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge Kimmins under 28 USC 636(c). The matter is currently set for a Telephonic Scheduling Conference on November 3, 2022 before Judge Kimmins. See id., at Doc. 8. Conversely, the Instant Action, filed on October 3, 2022, alleges that Defendant Ram Donuts misappropriated and infringed on Plaintiffs' tradenames and trademarks following the termination of the franchise agreements referenced in the Pending Action. (See generally Doc. 1.)
Based on the relevant standards, consolidation of the Instant Action and Pending Action is appropriate. These actions involve common questions of law and fact. Consolidation will promote efficiency and avoid the potential for inconsistent outcomes. There is one snag, however. The parties' consent "pursuant to their specific written request" is required before a magistrate judge may properly exercise jurisdiction over this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); see Columbia Record Prods. v. Hot Wax Records, Inc., 966 F.2d 515, 516 (9th Cir. 1992). As such, the Court will defer its ruling on the Stipulation for one week to allow the parties to file the appropriate "Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge" form in this action, if they so choose.
IT IS ORDERED DEFERING the parties' Stipulation for seven (7) days from the date of this order. (Doc. 9.) During this time, parties have leave, if they so choose, to file their completed "Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge" form. If the Consents are filed before the allotted time, the Court will grant the Stipulation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to provide the parties a copy of the "Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge" form.