Bissell v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al

1
24-cv-02286-AJB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRIS BISSELL, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
INC., and HONDA MOTOR
COMPANY LIMITED,
Defendants.
Case No.: 24-cv-02286-AJB-MMP
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION
TO CONSOLIDATE AND DENYING
AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS
(Doc. Nos. 24, 32)
Plaintiffs Chris Bissell, Cindy Massey, James Orton, Chris Vucovich and Lisa
Kiedrowski and Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda”) jointly move to
consolidate this action with 	Alcantara, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., No.
3:25-cv-02376-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2025), with this action serving as the lead
case. (Doc. No. 32.) The parties also jointly propose a schedule governing deadlines for
Plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint and briefing on Honda’s anticipated
motion to dismiss. (Id.)
For the reasons stated in this Court’s Order to Show Cause Re: Consolidation (Doc.
No. 31), and having considered the joint motion, the joint motion to consolidate is
GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The benefit to judicial
Case 3:24-cv-02286-AJB-MMP Document 33 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
24-cv-02286-AJB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
convenience of consolidating this action with the Alcantara action outweighs the potential
for 	any 	inconvenience, 	delay, 	or 	expense 	that 	consolidation 	could 	cause, 	because
consolidation would avoid duplicative discovery and proceedings in these cases that are
based on nearly identical allegations, share common issues of law and fact, are in similar
stages of development, and are pending in the same venue. See Huene v. U.S.,743 F.2d
703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984), on reh’g, 753 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1984) (district court “weighs
the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience,
delay, or expense that it would cause”).
Also, having reviewed the facts and circumstances set forth in the parties’ joint
motion, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the request to set a briefing
schedule and hereby ORDERS as follows:
1. 	In light of the Joint Motion, the Order to Show Cause regarding consolidation
is hereby discharged. (See Doc. No. 31.)
2. 	Plaintiffs 	must 	file 	an 	amended 	consolidated 	complaint 	no 	later 	than
February 24, 2026.
3. 	Honda must answer or otherwise respond to the amended consolidated
complaint no later than April 10, 2026.1 If Honda files a motion to dismiss, Honda will be
permitted five (5) additional pages in its brief, for a maximum length of thirty (30) pages.
4. 	Plaintiffs’ opposition, if a motion to dismiss is filed, must be filed no later
than May 11, 2026. Plaintiffs will be permitted five (5) additional pages in their brief, for
a maximum length of thirty (30) pages.
5. 	Honda’s reply, if any, must be filed no later than May 26, 2026.
6. 	If a motion is filed, the Court will review the parties’ briefs and set a hearing
if necessary.
1 The Court reminds the parties to fully review and comply with the undersigned’s Civil Case Procedures
prior to filing any noticed motions. See J. Battaglia Civ. Case Proc. § III.
Case 3:24-cv-02286-AJB-MMP Document 33 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
24-cv-02286-AJB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. 	In light of the Joint Motion, and the forthcoming amended consolidated
complaint, Honda’s pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 10, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-02286-AJB-MMP Document 33 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3