Kralicek and Flusche, LLC et al v. Whirlpool Corporation et al

Filing 28

ORDER that case number 2:13cv2228 is consolidated with 2:13cv2227. Further all pleadings and documents are to be filed in 2:13cv2227, as set forth. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on February 19, 2014. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
KRALICEK and FLUSCHE, LLC; REITH PROPERTIES, LLC;
SAM REITH; NEAL MORRISON; SUZANNE MORRISON
HOLLOWAY; JAMES WESTPFHAL; JOHN PRZYBYSZ;
MAHAM, LLC; ZELLA SCHEER, as the personal representative
of the Estate of SHIRLEY ANN WHITE, deceased; ROCKIE HAMM;
BARBARA HAMM; GARY FINNEY; HAROLD CORLEY;
NATASHA TAYLOR; ALAN TAYLOR; and
POTTS FAMILY ENTERPRISES, LLC
v.

PLAINTIFFS

Case No. 2:13-CV-02227

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION

DEFENDANT
ORDER

In an order issued on January 22, 2014, the Court informed the parties that it was considering
consolidating the instant case with Case No. 2:13-CV-02228, Wilkinson et al. v. Whirlpool
Corporation. The Court invited the parties to submit any objections or argument they wished to
make on the subject of consolidation no later than February 5, 2014. In response, Plaintiffs filed a
brief (Doc. 27) stating that they supported consolidation on pre-trial matters, including discovery,
but opposed consolidation of the trial. Defendant did not file any response. Plaintiffs also asked that
the Court reserve judgment on the issue of consolidation of the trial phase of these proceedings until
after discovery was completed and the parties had the opportunity to present the Court with a joint
trial plan.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that if actions before the court involve a
common question of law or fact, the district court in its discretion may consolidate the actions.
While “consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration,” the

-1-

consolidated suits will still maintain their separate identities. Enterprise Bank v. Saettele, 21 F.3d
233, 235 (8th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation omitted).
Here, the actions involve nearly identical complaints asserting largely the same legal claims
against the same Defendant. In addition, the same attorneys are involved in both cases. The Court
observes that consolidation will save expenses and conserve resources for both the parties and the
Court by eliminating duplicative discovery and preventing inconsistent pretrial rulings. No party will
be prejudiced by the consolidation of these cases at this time; however, after pre-trial discovery has
concluded and the matter is prepared for trial, the Court will reconsider whether consolidation
continues to be appropriate. In particular, the Court will entertain prior to trial any motions the
parties wish to make concerning whether the cases should be unconsolidated and tried separately.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Wilkinson et al. v. Whirlpool Corporation,
Case No. 2:13-CV-02228, is CONSOLIDATED with Kralicek and Flusche, LLC et al. v. Whirlpool
Corporation, Case No. 2:13-CV-02227.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, until further notice from the Court, all pleadings and
other documents in the consolidated case are to be filed in Kralicek and Flusche, LLC et al. v.
Whirlpool Corporation, Case No. 2:13-CV-02227.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of February, 2014.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-