Order | Filed: October 01, 2026
| Entered: October 01, 2026
Waitkus v Heights Finance Holding Co
P.I.: Other | South Carolina
Order on Motion to Consolidate Cases Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel
TEXT ORDER: Pending before the court are uncontested motions to consolidate eleven cases pending in this district that concern a data breach exposing personal information of customers and former customers of Defendant Heights Finance Holding Company and to appoint interim leadership counsel. Nash v. Heights Finance Holding Company, 6:26-cv-03563-TMC (ECF No. 12 ); Holyman-Capecchi v. Heights Finance Holding Company, 6:26-cv-03564-TMC (ECF No. 8 ); Smith v. Heights Finance Holding Company, 6:26-cv-03567-TMC (ECF No. 13 ); Malone v. Heights Finance Holding Company, 6:26-cv-03568-TMC (ECF No. 9 ); Patterson v. Heights Finance Holding Company, 6:26-cv-03579-TMC (ECF No. 10 ); Huston v. Heights Finance Holding Company, 6:26-cv-03592-TMC (ECF No. 9 ); Titus v. Heights Finance Holding Company, 6:26-cv-03594-TMC (ECF No. 9 ); Waitkus v. Heights Finance Holding Company, 6:26-cv-03672-TMC (ECF No. 9 ); Wells v. Heights Finance Holding Company, 6:26-cv-03674-TMC (ECF No. 14 ); Martin v. Heights Finance Holding Company, 6:26-cv-03677-TMC (ECF No. 9 ); Lane v. Heights Finance Holding Company, 6:26-cv-03792-TMC (ECF No. 9 ). Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part, that: "[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). "Consolidation under Rule 42(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., is a procedural device designed to promote judicial economy[.]" Cole v. Schenley Indus. Inc., 563 F.2d 35, 38 (2d Cir. 1977). "District courts have broad discretion under [this Rule] to consolidate causes pending in the same district." A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Const. Co., 559 F.2d 928, 933 (4th Cir. 1977). When presented with a motion to consolidate, courts should consider "whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion [are] overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives." Arnold v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 1982). See 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2384 (3d ed.) (providing "[a]ctions involving the same parties are apt candidates for consolidation"). The court finds the cases at issue all involve a common question of law or fact and that the Arnold factors weigh in favor of consolidation. Additionally, with the unanimous consent of all plaintiffs and over no objection from Defendant, the court hereby appoints Paul Doolittle of Poulin Willey Anastopoulo, LLC, Mariya Weekes of Milberg PLLC and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow as Interim Co-Lead Counsel (collectively "Interim Class Counsel") to act on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the putative Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motions to consolidate these cases as listed above. All future filings shall be filed in Nash v. Heights Finance Holding Company, 6:26-cv-03563-TMC (the "Consolidated Class Action"). Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action shall file an operative Consolidated Class Action Complaint within 45 days of this Order. Defendant need not respond to any of the previously filed complaints in the Related Actions and will respond to the operative Consolidated Class Action Complaint within 60 days after it is filed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Entered at ... (truncated)