Miranda v. Homefix Remodeling Corp., 8:22-cv-03190

Dribben v. Homefix (filed May 11, 2022, before Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher) is a putative nationwide TCPA class action alleging unsolicited telemarketing to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry; discovery is well underway.
Miranda v. Homefix (filed Dec. 12, 2022, before a different D. Md. judge) is a separate putative class action alleging five counts: two TCPA claims (Do-Not-Call and internal do-not-call list failures) and three counts under the TCPA/Florida Telephone Solicitation Act concerning prerecorded messages, automated dialing/recordings, and uncallable numbers.
One attorney (John McGowan) represents plaintiffs in both suits; Count 1 of Miranda closely mirrors the claim and class in Dribben, but Miranda contains four additional distinct claims and proposed classes.
Homefix moved to stay Miranda under the first-filed rule or, alternatively, to consolidate Miranda with Dribben; plaintiffs opposed, arguing insufficient overlap.
The court found the cases insufficiently identical to warrant a stay or consolidation, but identified substantial overlap between Dribben and Count 1 of Miranda and potential common discovery and class-certification issues.
The court transferred Miranda to Judge Gallagher (the Dribben judge), denied the motion to stay, and denied consolidation without prejudice to renewal later.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Miranda should be stayed under the first-filed rule	Miranda: cases not substantially overlapping because Miranda includes four additional, distinct claims	Homefix: Dribben was filed first and substantially overlaps with Miranda (particularly Count 1); first-filed rule favors staying the later case	Stay denied — insufficient party/issue identity because Miranda includes distinct claims not in Dribben
Whether the cases should be consolidated under Rule 42	Miranda: consolidation would be improper because many issues and classes differ and Miranda is at an earlier stage	Homefix: consolidation avoids duplicative litigation and inconsistent rulings given overlapping claims/classes	Consolidation denied without prejudice — consolidation could delay Dribben given its advanced discovery and risk unnecessary cost/delay
Whether the cases should be assigned to the same judge to avoid inconsistent rulings	Miranda: did not oppose having consistent adjudication but sought to proceed	Homefix: argued same-judge assignment warranted to avoid inconsistent rulings and promote efficiency	Granted in part — case transferred to Judge Gallagher to promote judicial economy and avoid inconsistent adjudications

Allied-General Nuclear Servs. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 675 F.2d 610 (4th Cir. 1982) (describing the first-filed rule in this circuit)
Ellicott Machine Corp. v. Modern Welding Co., Inc., 502 F.2d 178 (4th Cir. 1974) (explaining priority of the first-filed action absent countervailing convenience)
Chavez v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 836 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2016) (discussing remedies under the first-filed rule, including stays, transfers, and dismissals)
Baatz v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 814 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2016) (considering substantial overlap between putative classes for party identity under the first-filed rule)
Smith v. Securities & Exchange Comm'n, 129 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (holding one action must be materially on all fours with the other to justify first-filed deference)
Congress Credit Corp. v. AJC Int'l, Inc., 42 F.3d 686 (1st Cir. 1994) (discussing identity of issues required for first-filed application)
Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186 (4th Cir. 1982) (setting factors for weighing consolidation/prejudice and judicial economy)