Hill v. City of Aurora, Colorado

Filing 90

ORDER granting 72 Defendant's Motion to Consolidate. The later-filed case, which is now Civil Action No. 11-cv-00010-PAB-KMT, shall be consolidated with this action. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 6/8/11.(mnf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01134-PAB-KMT
GEORG K. HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO, a municipal corporation,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion to consolidate [Docket No.
72] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). Defendant requests that the
Court consolidate the present action (“Hill 1”) with Case No. 11-cv-00010-MSK-KMT
(“Hill 2”), which plaintiff filed against defendant on January 3, 2011. The motion was
properly filed in this action since, pursuant to Local Rule 42.1, the judge assigned to the
lowest numbered case decides whether consolidation is warranted. See
D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1.
“If 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); see D.C.COLO.LCivR
42.1. The decision whether to consolidate is committed to the sound discretion of the
district court. See Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978). Rule 42(a)
affords courts with “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. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 220 F.R.D.
366, 367 (D. Colo. 2004) (quoting 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure
§ 2381 at 427 (2nd ed.1995)).
A review of the operative complaints in the two actions reveals that they allege
substantially similar facts against the same defendant. Compare Docket No. 1, ¶¶ 1374 with No. 11-cv-00010-MSK-KMT, Docket No. 1, ¶¶ 15-53, 56-58, 61, 63, 72-77, 83.
Based upon those facts, both complaints assert three Title VII claims alleging disparate
treatment, harassment, and retaliation and seek the same relief. Compare Docket No.
1, ¶¶ 58-73 with No. 11-cv-00010-MSK-KMT, Docket No. 1, ¶¶ 84-103. Considering
both judicial economy and fairness to the parties, see Harris v. Illinois-California
Express, Inc., 687 F.2d 1361, 1368 (10th Cir. 1982), the Court finds that consolidation
is warranted. Consolidation in this instance will eliminate the need for two judicial
officers to address and rule on these substantially similar matters.
Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion to consolidate. Instead, he filed motions
to amend his complaint in each case in order to “clarify the factual and cause of action
differences between” the two cases. See, e.g., Docket No. 77 at 2. The two proposed
amended complaints, however, continue to assert the three same claims arising from
substantially similar facts against the same defendant. Therefore, if plaintiff’s motions
to amend are granted, consolidation will remain an efficacious approach to managing
the two actions.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that defendant’s motion to consolidate [Docket No. 72] is GRANTED.

2

The later-filed case, which is now Civil Action No. 11-cv-00010-PAB-KMT, shall be
consolidated with this action. The captions of all future filings shall reflect the same.

DATED June 8, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

3