O'Leary v. Yes Communities, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Case No. 25-cv-00692-PAB
MICHELLE O’LEARY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
YES COMMUNITIES, LLC,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to
Consolidate Cases [Docket 9], filed by plaintiff Michelle O’Leary, plaintiff Terry Wilkins
(plaintiff in Wilkins v. Yes Communities, LLC, 25-cv-00698-JLK), plaintiff Teresa Starks
(plaintiff in Starks v. Yes Communities, LLC, 25-cv-00728-PAB), and plaintiff Brenton
Kay (plaintiff in Kay v. Yes Communities, LLC, 25-cv-00819-NYW-CYC). Ms. O’Leary
moves to consolidate this case with Wilkins v. Yes Communities, LLC, 25-cv-00698-
JLK, Starks v. Yes Communities, LLC, 25-cv-00728-PAB, and Kay v. Yes Communities,
LLC, 25-cv-00819-NYW-CYC (the “Related Cases”). Id. at 1-2. Defendants in this case
and the Related Cases agree to consolidation. Id. at 3.
Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits consolidation when
cases “involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The decision
whether to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact is committed
to the sound discretion of the district court. Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th
Case No. 1:25-cv-00692-PAB-NRN Document 13 filed 04/22/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 6

2
Cir. 1978). The purpose of Rule 42(a) is “to give the court broad discretion to decide
how cases on its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be
dispatched with expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties.” Breaux
v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 220 F.R.D. 366, 367 (D. Colo. 2004) (quoting 9 C.
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2381 at 427 (2d ed. 1995)).
Therefore, the Court considers both judicial economy and fairness to the parties in
exercising its discretion under Rule 42(a). See Harris v. Illinois-California Express, Inc.,
687 F.2d 1361, 1368 (10th Cir. 1982).
Plaintiffs assert that the Related Cases involve common questions of law and
fact. Docket No. 9 at 4-5. In the present case, Ms. O’Leary, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and
unjust enrichment against defendant Yes Communities, LLC (“Yes Communities”).
Docket No. 1 at 32-48. Ms. O’Leary alleges the following: Yes Communities is a “real
estate company that specializes in ownership and management of residential
communities serving thousands of residents nationwide,” id. at 1, ¶ 2; in the “ordinary
course of receiving services from Yes Communities,” she was required to provide her
personal information to Yes Communities, id. at 5, ¶ 23; Yes Communities discovered
that an unauthorized party had accessed certain company files between December 9,
2024 and December 11, 2024 (the “Data Breach”), id. at 2, ¶ 5; on February 24, 2025,
Yes Communities sent out letters to “individuals whose information was compromised
as a result of the hacking incident,” id., ¶ 4; “data thieves” used the personal information
they accessed in the data breach to “commit a variety of crimes,” id., ¶ 8; and she is at
Case No. 1:25-cv-00692-PAB-NRN Document 13 filed 04/22/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 6

3
“significant risk of identify theft and various others forms of personal, social, and
financial harm.” Id., ¶ 6.
In the Related Cases, plaintiffs bring claims against Yes Communities arising out
of the Data Breach and the exposure of their personal information. See Wilkins v. Yes
Communities, LLC, 25-cv-00698-JLK, Docket No. 1 at 1-2, ¶ 2; Starks v. Yes
Communities, LLC, 25-cv-00728-PAB, Docket No. 1 at 1, ¶ 1; Kay v. Yes Communities,
LLC, 25-cv-00819-NYW-CYC, Docket No. 1 at 1-2, ¶¶ 3-4. The plaintiffs in the Related
Cases bring claims against Yes Communities for negligence, breach of implied contract,
and unjust enrichment. See Wilkins v. Yes Communities, LLC, 25-cv-00698-JLK,
Docket No. 1 at 39-49; Starks v. Yes Communities, LLC, 25-cv-00728-PAB, Docket
No. 1 at 18-30; Kay v. Yes Communities, LLC, 25-cv-00819-NYW-CYC, Docket No. 1 at
32-43. These are the same three claims that Ms. O’Leary alleges. Like Ms. O’Leary,
the plaintiffs in the Related Cases name only one defendant, Yes Communities.
Both lawsuits involve overlapping legal and factual questions, which warrants
consolidation. As a result, the Court finds that consolidation would promote judicial
economy and that the efficiency benefits of consolidation also outweigh any possible
prejudice to the parties. See Harris, 687 F.2d at 1368.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Cases [Docket
No. 9] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1,
Civil Action Nos. 25-cv-00692-PAB, 25-cv-00698-JLK, 25-cv-00728-PAB, and 25-cv-
00819-NYW-CYC shall be consolidated. It is further
Case No. 1:25-cv-00692-PAB-NRN Document 13 filed 04/22/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 6

4
ORDERED that, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Action Nos. 25-cv-
00698-JLK and 25-cv-819-NYW-CYC shall be assigned to Chief Judge Philip A.
Brimmer. It is further
ORDERED that Civil Action Nos. 25-cv-00692-PAB, 25-cv-00698-JLK, 25-cv-
00728-PAB, and 25-cv-819-NYW-CYC shall be referred to Magistrate Judge N. Reid
Neureiter. It is further
ORDERED that, as of the date of this order, all future pleadings and other filings
shall be filed in this case only and shall be captioned as follows:
Case No. 1:25-cv-00692-PAB-NRN Document 13 filed 04/22/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 6

5
______________________________________________________________________
Civil Case No. 25-cv-00692-PAB-NRN
(Consolidated with Civil Case Nos. 25-cv-00698-PAB-NRN, 25-cv-00728-PAB-
NRN, and 25-cv-00819-PAB-NRN)
______________________________________________________________________
Civil Case No. 25-cv-00692-PAB-NRN
MICHELLE O’LEARY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
YES COMMUNITIES, LLC,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
Civil Case No. 25-cv-00698-PAB-NRN
TERRY WILKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
YES COMMUNITIES, LLC,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
Civil Case No. 25-cv-00728-PAB-NRN
TERESA STARKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
YES COMMUNITIES, LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00692-PAB-NRN Document 13 filed 04/22/25 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 6

6
______________________________________________________________________
Civil Case No. 25-cv-00819-PAB-NRN
BRENTON KAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
YES COMMUNITIES, LLC,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
DATED April 22, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
_ _________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
_ __________________________	__
Case No. 1:25-cv-00692-PAB-NRN Document 13 filed 04/22/25 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 6