RICH v. NAHGA INC

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JUSTIN DAVIDSON-SALAS et al., )
)
Plaintiffs 	)
)
v. 	) 	Nos. 	2:25-cv-00604-KFW
) 	2:25-cv-00632-KFW
NAHGA, INC. 	) 	2:25-cv-00645-KFW
d/b/a NAHGA CLAIM SERVICES 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER ON MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
AND APPOINT INTERIM CLASS ACTION COUNSEL
There are presently three separately filed but related data security cases
pending against the Defendant NAHGA, Inc. Plaintiffs—Justin Davidson-Salas
(2:25-cv-00604-KFW), Tiffany B. Arnett (2:25-cv-00632-KFW), and Amber Rich
(2:25-cv-00645-KFW)—now seek to consolidate their related actions and
appoint interim class counsel. See Unopposed Motion (ECF No. 4). The
Defendants do not oppose consolidation and take no position on the
appointment of interim class counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the
Plaintiffs’ motion is granted.
I. Consolidation
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) provides that courts may consolidate
pending actions that “involve a common question of law or fact.” The purpose
of Rule 42(a) “is to give the district 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.” 9A Arthur R.
Miller,
Case 2:25-cv-00645-KFW Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2381, Westlaw (database updated September 2025).
The 	First 	Circuit 	uses 	a 	two-step 	framework 	to 	determine 	whether 	to
consolidate. 	See Seguro de Servicio de Salud de P.R. v. McAuto Sys. Grp., Inc.,
878 F.2d 5, 8-9 (1st Cir. 1989). “The threshold issue is whether the two proceedings
involve a common party and common issues of fact or law.” Id. at 8. If so, “the trial
court has broad discretion in weighing the costs and benefits of consolidation to decide
whether that procedure is appropriate.” 	Id. 	Consolidation is typically “granted
unless the party opposing it can show demonstrable prejudice.” Id. (cleaned up).
Here, the related actions involve a common party and present common
questions of fact and law. 	Each action (1) names NAHGA, Inc. as a defendant; (2)
arises from the same operative facts, specifically the Defendants’ alleged failure to
implement reasonable data protection and security practices, which resulted in the
exposure of the Plaintiffs’ personal information during a data breach; (3) alleges
negligence, unjust enrichment, and various breach of contract claims, among others;
and (4) seeks similar damages and some form of declaratory judgment or injunctive
relief. 	See, e.g., Davidson-Salas Complaint (ECF No. 1), No. 2:25-cv-00604-KFW,
at 21-45.
Furthermore, any differences among the related actions are outweighed by the
advantages of consolidation. 	As discussed above, these actions share substantial
overlapping factual and legal issues, increasing the likelihood that they will require
many of the same documents and witnesses as litigation proceeds. Consolidating the
actions at this early stage will prevent duplicative discovery, thereby conserving time
Case 2:25-cv-00645-KFW Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
and resources for both the court and the parties, without causing delay. 	See
Carr v. Analogic 	Corp., 	Nos. 	18-cv-11301-ADB, 	18-CV-11557-ADB, 	2018 	WL
4932858, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 10, 2018) (stating that class actions are “particularly
well suited to consolidation pursuant to Rule 42(a) because unification expedites
pretrial proceedings, reduces case duplication, avoids the need to contact parties and
witnesses for multiple proceedings, and minimizes the expenditure of time and money
for all parties involved”).
II. Appointment of Interim Class Counsel
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) permits the court to “designate interim
counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the
action as a class action.” Before designating counsel, the court must consider (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”;
(4) “the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class”; and (5) “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)(A)-(B).
The Plaintiffs request the appointment of Attorneys Cassandra P. Miller of
Strauss Borrelli PLLC, Marc H. Edelson of Edelson Lechtzin LLP, and Daniel
Srourian 	of 	Srourian 	Law 	Firm, 	P.C., 	as 	Interim 	co-lead 	class 	counsel. 	See
Unopposed Motion at 6. Upon review of Attorneys Miller’s, Edelson’s, and Srourian’s
significant involvement in and commitment to prosecuting these actions to date,
Case 2:25-cv-00645-KFW Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
see Unopposed Motion at 7-9, as well as their demonstrated knowledge, resources,
and professional experience, see id. at 8-17; see also ECF Nos. 11-1-11-3, I am satisfied
they are qualified to serve as interim co-lead class counsel in this matter.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED and I hereby
ORDER that (1) Attorneys Cassandra P. Miller of Strauss Borrelli PLLC, Marc H.
Edelson of Edelson Lechtzin LLP, and Daniel Srourian of Srourian Law Firm, P.C.,
shall serve as interim co-lead class counsel; (2) the Plaintiffs shall file an amended
class action complaint by February 27, 2026; (3) all deadlines to file an answer are
stayed and shall be reset after the amended class action complaint is filed (the parties
may file a proposed scheduling order); and (4) Davidson-Salas v. NAHGA, Inc.,
2:25-cv-00604-KFW is designated as the lead case and shall be consolidated with the
following related cases: Nos. 2:25-cv-00632-KFW, 2:25-cv-00645-KFW.
NOTICE
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may
serve and file an objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to review by the District Court and to any further appeal of this order.
Dated: January 13, 2026
/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00645-KFW Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>