Opinion
23cv1165-GPC(SBC)
08-25-2023
CHRISTY HERTEL, derivatively on behalf of RYVVL INC. f/k/a GREENBOX POS, Plaintiff, v. BEN ERREZ, FREDI NISAN, J DREW BYELICK, BENJAMIN CHUNG, GENEVIEVE BAER, WILLIAM CARAGOL, EZRA LANIADO and DENNIS JAMES Defendants, and RYVVL, INC., Nominal Defendant,
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES, ACCEPT SERVICE AND APPOINT CO-COUNSEL [DKT. NO. 8.]
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel, United States District Judge
Before the Court is a joint motion to consolidate the cases of Hertel v. Errez, Case No. 23cv1165-GPC(SBC), and Gazaway v. Errez, 23cv1425-LAB(BLM), accept service, and appoint co-lead counsel in these shareholder derivative complaints. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiffs in the joint motion are Christy Hertel and Marcus Gazaway, the plaintiffs in the two shareholder derivative complaints. Defendants who joined in the joint motion are Ben Errez, Fredi Nisan, Benjamin Chung, Genevieve Baer, William Caragol, Ezra Laniado, Dennis James, and Nominal Defendant Ryvvl, Inc. (Dkt. No. 8.) Defendant J. Drew Byelick is absent from the joint motion and no proof of service of the joint motion has been filed indicating Mr. Byelick received notice of the joint motion.
At the time the joint motion was filed, the two cases had not been low numbered. In this district, consolidation cannot occur with two cases assigned to different district judges. However, because the two cases were low numbered on August 24, 2023, the joint motion to consolidate is now permissible.
“Defendants' indication that the present motion is brought as a ‘joint' motion is somewhat misleading.” Ruiz v. Jimenez, Case No.: 22cv233-LL-WVG, 2022 WL 867010, at *3 n. 3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022) (quoting Harville v. Cnty. Comm'n of Lawrence Cnty., Alabama, No. cv-08-C-0222-NE, 2008 WL 11379962, at *1 n. 3 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 19, 2008)). “Typically, ‘joint' motions are brought by all parties to a particular lawsuit ....” Id.; see also Maisel v. AEH Co., Inc., Case No.: 3:21-cv-01493-BEN-DEB, 2021 WL 4551939, at *1 n. 2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2021) (same).
Here, Defendant Byelick has not joined in the “joint motion.” Because granting the joint motion will impact Mr. Byelick, who has not been provided notice of the joint motion, and also in the interest of avoiding piecemeal litigation, and judicial efficiency, the Court DENIES the joint motion to consolidate cases, accept service and appoint cocounsel. To the extent Mr. Byelick declines to agree to the joint motion, Plaintiff must file the appropriate motion with the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.