Page7 of 8 CASE NO. 14-cv-01576-JSW MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 42(A) AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 8- 1 DECLARATION 2 3 I, Jean G. Vidal-Font, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. Cal. Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), that that the 4 foregoing document was filed and/or served electronically in compliance with Local Rule.

See Lieberman-Sack v. Harvard Community Health Plan of New England, Inc., D.C.R.I.1995, 882 F.Supp. 249; Gauthreaux v. Baylor Univ. Medical Center, D.C.Tex.1994, 876 F.Supp. 847; Brom v. Bozell, Jacobs, Kenyon & Eckhardt, Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 867 F.Supp. 686 (in employment discrimination case, issue of damages was more complex, more hotly contested, and involved completely different evidence than liability issue; court ordered separate trials). § 2390 Separate Trials—Separation of Liability From Damages, 9A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2390 (3d ed.) Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by separate trials as to the issues of liability and damages; if liability is established, Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to present his damages to the same jury or court that determined liability. IV. No Evidence of Defendant’s Financial Condition Should be Admissible During the Initial Phase of Trial If the Court, as requested, bifurcates the trial pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 42(b), Plaintiff should be prohibited from introducing any evidence of Defendants’ current profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a liability verdict for Plaintiff. Defendants’ net worth, profit and general financial condition is not relevant to issues of, nor admissible to prove, liability and/or compensatory damages. See Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (finding that evidence of a defendant’s financial condition cannot be considered in determining compensatory damages); Ingle v. Circuit City, No. 99-CV-1297-RHW, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100620, * 13–14 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2006) (finding that evidence regarding the defendant’s financial condition is irrelevant to a plaintiff’s Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 112 Filed 03/14/18 Page 12 of 16 34083745v1 34118545v1 Page 13 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 claims of retaliation and failure to accommodate

For these reasons and because the complaints in the Hall Case and the Green Case assert similar legal theories and seek a collective and/or class action involving the same purported class members, consolidation under Rule 42(a) is appropriate. D. Additional Factors Support Consolidation

, Aon moves in the alternative to sever and stay such claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b). Case: 2:11-cv-00583-EAS-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 08/25/11 Page: 17 of 19 PAGEID #: 149 18 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Aon respectfully asks that the Court dismiss Counts Six, Seven, and Eight. In the alternative, Aon respectfully requests severance and a stay of any remaining claims in the Court’s discretion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b). Of counsel: James E. Arnold & Associates, LPA 115 West Main Street, 4th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (614) 460-1600 Telefax: (614) 469-1066 Matthew J. Burkhart (0068299) James E. Arnold & Associates, LPA 115 West Main Street, 4th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (614) 460-1637 Telefax: (614) 469-1129 mburkhart@arnlaw.com Timothy J. P. Rooney (pro hac vice) Norman K. Beck (pro hac vice) Linda T. Coberly (pro hac vice) Kevin P. McCormick (pro hac vice) Winston & Strawn LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601-9703 Telephone: (312) 558-5972 Telefax: (312) 558-5700 trooney@winston.com nbeck@winston.com lcoberly@winston.com kmccormick@winston.com Respectfully submitted, s/ James E. Arnold James E. Arnold (0037712) Trial Attorney for Defendant Aon 115 West Main Street, 4th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (614) 460-1600 Telefax: (614) 469-1066 jarnold@arnlaw.com Case: 2:11-cv-00583-EAS-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 08

Rule 42(b) merely allows, but does not require, a trial court to bifurcate cases "in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 42(b). The district court's decision to decline to bifurcate the trial comported with normal trial procedure.

98 at p. 10].6 Plaintiffs’ conclusion, however, is not supported by the pleadings or the case law, as set forth herein. Plaintiff’s arguments are supported by mere references to “boilerplate” statements found in cases decided under FRCP 42. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ specific reference to the standards to be applied to their Motion is set forth in their Motion as follows: Factors for the district court to consider in deciding if consolidation is appropriate include (1) whether the actions are pending before the same court, (2) whether common parties are involved in the cases, (3) whether there are common 6 Plaintiffs in the Receiver Action have asserted an identical argument in that case.

Because these four overlapping class actions indisputably involve common questions of law and fact, consolidation will facilitate the efficient management of this action, appropriately conserve judicial and party resources, and prevent undue prejudice, costs, and delays. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). App Defendants Path and Instagram, who advocated relation, cannot plausibly claim otherwise.

They are prepared to file it if the Court orders consolidation. If a consolidated complaint is filed, Defendants will need to respond to only one complaint, and this Court will only need to rule on one motion to dismiss, which will prevent unnecessary cost or delay as dictated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(3). See In re Equity Funding Corp. of Am. Sec.

. Accordingly, separating the damages claim clearly serves the goals of convenience, avoiding prejudice to the County, and expedition and economy set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Case 7:10-cv-04917-CS Document 225 Filed 12/10/14 Page 12 of 13 12 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons it is respectfully requested that the County’s motion in limine for trifurcation be granted in all respects.

(312) 862-2000 Attorneys for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Governor Alejandro J. Garcia Padilla, in his official capacity, and John Doe, agent for the Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico s/ Alejandro Febres-Jorge Alejandro Febres-Jorge (USDC-PR No. 228403) GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR PUERTO RICO Roberto Sánchez Vilella Government Center De Diego Avenue No. 100 Santurce, Puerto Rico 00907-2345 Tel: (787) 729-6438 Attorney for John Doe, agent for the Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico Case 3:14-cv-01518-FAB Document 87 Filed 08/15/14 Page 11 of 12 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this same date I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record in Case No. 14-cv-1518. Additionally, pursuant to Local Rule 42, I have served this motion for consolidation by electronic mail on all parties within Case No. 14-cv-1569, the case for which consolidation is sought. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 15th day of August 2014. s/ Janitza M. García-Marrero____________ Janitza M. García-Marrero Case 3:14-cv-01518-FAB Document 87 Filed 08/15/14