Douglas v. SSA Holdings, LLC,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 25-cv-03740-NYW-SBP
ANDRES GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
SSA HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Judge Nina Y. Wang
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate Cases and
Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (“Motion to Consolidate” or “Motion”). 	[Doc. 5].
Plaintiff Andres Gomez (“Mr. Gomez”) asks the Court to consolidate this case with three
related cases: Douglas v. SSA Holdings, LLC, Civil Action No. 25-cv-03758-GPG-SBP;
Ando v. SSA Holdings, LLC d/b/a SSA Group, Civil Action No. 25-cv-03762-RMR-CYC;
and Baron v. SSA Holdings, LLC, Civil Action No. 25-cv-03793-RMR-STV. [Doc. 5 at 2].
This Motion is joined by Shaniel Douglas, Thomas Ando, and Kaia Baron, the plaintiffs in
the three related cases (together with Mr. Gomez, “Plaintiffs”). 	See [id.]. 	Plaintiffs also
request that the Court appoint Andrew J. Shamis (“Mr. Shamis”) of Shamis & Gentile,
P.A., Raina Borrelli (“Ms. Borrelli”) of Strauss Borrelli PLLC, A. Brooke Murphy (“Ms.
Murphy”) of Murphy Law Firm, and Jeff Ostrow (“Mr. Ostrow”) of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.
as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. [Id. at 3].
Defendant does not oppose the consolidation requested in the Motion and takes
no position as to appointment of lead counsel. [Doc. 10]. For the reasons set forth below,
the Motion is respectfully GRANTED.
I. 	Consolidation
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f actions before
the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the
actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). “The decision whether to consolidate such actions is
left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” C.T. v. Liberal Sch. Dist., 562 F. Supp. 2d
1324, 1346 (D. Kan. 2008) (citing Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978)).
Rule 42(a) is intended “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. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co.,
Case No. 1:25-cv-03758-NYW-SBP Document 11 filed 01/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 4

2
220 F.R.D. 366, 367 (D. Colo. 2004) (quotation omitted). 	Thus, in exercising this
discretion, the Court weighs both “judicial economy and fairness to the parties.” MSPBO,
LLC v. Adidas N. Am., Inc., No. 13-cv-02287-PAB-KMT, 2014 WL 349102, at *1 (D. Colo.
Jan. 30, 2014) (citing Harris v. Illinois-California Express, Inc., 687 F.2d 1361, 1368 (10th
Cir. 1982)).
The Court agrees that consolidation is appropriate. All four actions stem from the
same underlying facts—a September 2025 data breach that Plaintiffs allege was caused
by Defendant’s failure to properly safeguard the private information of its customers and
employees. 	[Doc. 5 at 3]; compare [Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 1–2, 6–8, 16], with Complaint at ¶¶ 1,
4–5, 7–10, Douglas v. SSA Holdings, LLC, No. 25-cv-03758-GPG-SBP (D. Colo. Nov.
20, 2025), ECF No. 1 (“Douglas Complaint”), and Complaint at ¶¶ 1, 3, 5–6, Ando v. SSA
Holdings, LLC d/b/a SSA Group, No. 25-cv-03762-RMR-CYC (D. Colo. Nov. 20, 2025),
ECF No. 1 (“Ando Complaint”), and Complaint at ¶¶ 1–2, 6–8, 16, Baron v. SSA Holdings,
LLC, 	No. 	25-cv-03793-RMR-STV 	(D. 	Colo. 	Nov. 	24, 	2025), 	ECF 	No. 	1 	(“Baron
Complaint”). 	All four Plaintiffs bring claims for negligence and unjust enrichment, and
assert additional similar, though not identical causes of action. 	See [Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 149–
205]; Douglas Complaint at ¶¶ 90–151; Ando Complaint at ¶¶ 81–161; Baron Complaint
at ¶¶ 149–205.
These factual and legal similarities between the cases suggest that discovery and
motions practice in the two cases will overlap significantly, meaning that consolidation will
facilitate a more efficient resolution of the cases for both the Parties and the Court. And
there is no indication that any other Party will be prejudiced by consolidation. The Court
is therefore persuaded that these four cases share common questions of fact and law
that warrant consolidation under Rule 42(a).
II. 	Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel
Plaintiffs next request that the Court appoint Mr. Shamis, Ms. Borelli, Ms. Murphy,
and Mr. Ostrow as interim co-lead class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure
23(g). [Doc. 5 at 3]. Defendant takes no position on this request. [Doc. 10].
Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the appointment of
class counsel. 	Relevant here, the Rule provides that a court “may designate interim
counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action
as a class action.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). 	“When appointing interim class counsel,
courts generally look to the same factors used in determining the adequacy of class
counsel under Rule 23(g)(1)(A).” In re Mun. Derivatives Antitrust Litig., 252 F.R.D. 184,
186 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Dorn v. Mueller, No. 10-cv-00925-WYD-CBS, 2010 WL 2232418,
at *1 (D. Colo. May 28, 2010). These factors include: (1) the work counsel has done in
identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (2) counsel’s experience in
handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the
action; (3) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and (4) the resources that counsel
will commit to representing the class. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A). 	The court may also
Case No. 1:25-cv-03758-NYW-SBP Document 11 filed 01/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 4

3
“consider any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent
the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B).
Upon review of these factors, the Court finds it appropriate to appoint Mr. Shamis,
Ms. Borelli, Ms. Murphy, and Mr. Ostrow as interim co-lead class counsel in this matter.
With respect to the first factor, the Motion to Consolidate represents that all four counsel
have “committed appropriate time and resources to organizing and working together
toward the advancement of the litigation, investigating and researching the potential legal
theories and claims at issue, and researching and reviewing information relating to the
factual underpinnings of this litigation.” [Doc. 5 at 7–8].
As for the remaining factors, all four counsel have extensive experience in class
action litigation, specifically in cases involving data privacy and consumer protection
issues. 	[Id. at 8–18]. 	Mr. Shamis is the managing partner at Shamis & Gentile, P.A.
where he heads the class action and mass torts division of the firm. 	[Id. at 8–11]. 	Ms.
Borrelli is a founding partner at Strauss Borrelli PLLC, leads the firm’s class action
litigation practice, and has served as lead counsel or co-counsel in numerous data breach
cases throughout the country. 	[Id. at 11–13]. 	Ms. Murphy is a founding member of
Murphy Law Firm, specializes in representing plaintiffs in class actions, and has “litigated
numerous data breach class actions across the country.” 	[Id. at 13–15]. 	Mr. Ostrow is
the Managing Partner of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., where he heads the class action
department and has been a counsel of record in more than 500 data breach cases. [Id.
at 15–18]. Counsel’s respective law firms also have extensive experience in class action
and data privacy litigation. See [id. at 8–18; Doc. 5-2; Doc. 5-3; Doc. 5-4; Doc. 5-5].
Mr. Shamis, Ms. Borelli, Ms. Murphy, and Mr. Ostrow represent that they are able
to and will commit the resources necessary to vigorously prosecute these cases. [Doc.
5 at 19]. The Court concludes that Mr. Shamis, Ms. Borelli, Ms. Murphy, and Mr. Ostrow
are well-versed in the applicable law and able to effectively litigate this case on behalf of
Plaintiffs and the putative class members. 	For these reasons, the Court finds that
appointment of Mr. Shamis, Ms. Borelli, Ms. Murphy, and Mr. Ostrow as interim co-lead
class counsel is appropriate under Rule 23(g)(3). 	The Motion to Consolidate is
respectfully GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) 	Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate Cases and Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class
Counsel [Doc. 5] is GRANTED;
(2) 	Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1,
the Clerk of Court shall CONSOLIDATE this case with Douglas v. SSA
Holdings, LLC, Civil Action No. 25-cv-03758-GPG-SBP; Ando v. SSA
Holdings, LLC d/b/a SSA Group, Civil Action No. 25-cv-03762-RMR-CYC;
and Baron v. SSA Holdings, LLC, Civil Action No. 25-cv-03793-RMR-STV;
Case No. 1:25-cv-03758-NYW-SBP Document 11 filed 01/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 4

4
(3) 	The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reassign the magistrate judge referral
duties in Civil Action Nos. 25-cv-03762-RMR-CYC and 25-cv-03793-RMR-
STV to Magistrate Judge Susan B. Prose;
(4) 	The Parties shall file all pleadings and papers in this action under the
caption of:
Civil Action No. 25-cv-03740-NYW-SBP
Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 25-cv-03758-GPG-SBP, 25-cv-
03762-RMR-SBP, and 25-cv-03793-RMR-SBP
(5) 	All filings shall be made in Civil Action No. 25-cv-03740-NYW-SBP; and
(6) 	The Parties are ORDERED to jointly contact Judge Prose’s Chambers no
later than January 19, 2026 for the purpose of scheduling a Status
Conference to discuss preparation of a Scheduling Order.
DATED: January 12, 2026
Case No. 1:25-cv-03758-NYW-SBP Document 11 filed 01/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 4