Cordova v. Acosta Tractors Inc. et al

Filing 40

ORDER Granting, in part, 28 Motion to Consolidate and Order Staying Cases Pending Resolution of Appeal. Signed by Ch. Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 9/20/2017. (par)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 12-21111-CIV-SIMONTON

MARTIN OMAR GARCIA, LORENZO
AMADO SALINAS, JATNIEL CASANAS
CORENT and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216 (B),
Plaintiffs,
v.
ACOSTA TRACTORS INC.,
and FELIX F. ACOSTA,
Defendants.
________________________________/

CASE NO.: 13-22377-CIV-SIMONTON
EUSEBLO CASANA CORDOVA,
and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216 (B),
Plaintiffs,
v.
ACOSTA TRACTORS INC.,
and FELIX F. ACOSTA,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE AND ORDER STAYING
CASES PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL
This matter is before the Court upon the Defendants’ Motion to Re-Open Case, Lift
Stay and Consolidate filed in Garcia v. Acosta Tractors, Inc. Felix F. Acosta and Frank P.
Acosta, Case No. 12-21111-CIV-SIMONTON, ECF No. [48]. The Plaintiffs have filed a
Response in opposition and the Defendants have filed a Reply, ECF Nos. [51] [53]. Also
before this Court is Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Re-Open Case, Lift Stay and
Consolidate filed in Cordova v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., and Felix F. Acosta, Case No. 13-

22377-CIV-SIMONTON, ECF No. [28]. The Plaintiffs in that case have also filed a
response and the Defendants have filed a Reply, ECF Nos. [29] [31].
In addition, the Plaintiffs in both of the above-captioned cases have filed a Motion
for Default, Jury Trial as to Damages, Sanctions, and for Miscellaneous Relief in the
respective cases. (See Garcia v. Acosta Tractors, Inc. Felix F. Acosta and Frank P.
Acosta, Case No. 12-21111-CIV-SIMONTON, ECF No. [52]; Cordova v. Acosta Tractors,
Inc., and Felix F. Acosta, Case No. 13-22377-CIV-SIMONTON, ECF No. [30]). Those
Motions have also been fully briefed. 1
For the following reasons, the undersigned grants the Defendants’ Motions to ReOpen Case, Lift Stay and Consolidate, in part. The case of Garcia v. Acosta Tractors, Inc.,
Felix F. Acosta and Frank P. Acosta, Case No. 12-21111-CIV-SIMONTON (“Garcia”) will be
consolidated with the case of Cordova v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., and Felix F. Acosta, Case
No. 13-22377-CIV-SIMONTON, (“Cordova”) for all future proceedings. In addition, these
matters are stayed until the appeal before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the
matter of Julio Hernandez Hernandez v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Felix F. Acosta, Alex Ros,
15-23486-FAM (“Hernandez”) is resolved.
I.

BACKGROUND

The Garcia matter was initiated when Plaintiff Martin Omar Garcia filed a twocount Complaint against Defendants Acosta Tractors Inc., Felix F. Acosta and Frank P.
Acosta seeking payment of overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. § 201, et seq., (“FLSA”), and the payment of wages pursuant to § 22.3 Code of
Miami Dade County, ECF No. [1]. In the Second Amended Complaint, filed on September
13, 2012, the Plaintiff, who had previously added Lorenzo Amado Salinas as a Plaintiff in
the First Amended Complaint, added Jatniel Casanas Corent as a third Plaintiff, dropped
1

On August 29, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman transferred
Cordova v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Case No. 13-22377-CIV-GOODMAN to the undersigned,
ECF No. [39].
2

the claim for unpaid wages pursuant to the Miami Dade County Code, and added a claim
for retaliation in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 215(A)(3) as to Plaintiffs Garcia and Salinas, ECF
No. [29]. After the case was transferred from the Honorable Patricia A. Seitz, United
States District Judge, to the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the Parties, the
undersigned granted the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Compel Arbitration and Stay
Proceedings, ECF No. [43]. The case was accordingly closed and the Parties were
directed to attend arbitration.
The Cordova matter was initiated when Plaintiff Euseblo Casanas Cordova filed a
one-count Complaint against Defendants Acosta Tractors Inc., and Felix F. Acosta
seeking payment of overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 201, et seq., (“FLSA”), ECF No. [1]. On October 18, 2013, following the filing of
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, the
Court dismissed this case without prejudice so that the parties could litigate the matter
before an arbitration panel, ECF No. [24].
Nearly three years later, the Defendants in both the Garcia matter and the Cordova
matter filed Motions to Re-Open Case, Lift Stay and Consolidate seeking to consolidate
those cases with the case of Julio Hernandez Hernandez v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Felix F.
Acosta, Alex Ros, 15-23486-CIV-MORENO, (“Hernandez”), a later-filed similar FLSA case
pending before the Honorable Federico A. Moreno, United States District Judge. In the
Cordova matter, the Motion to Re-Open Case was stricken by Magistrate Judge Goodman
for failure to adequately confer, and after conferral, the Defendants filed the pending
Renewed Motion to Re-Open Case, Lift Stay and Consolidate, ECF No. [28]. On August
29, 2017, Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman transferred Cordova v. Acosta Tractors,
Inc., Case No. 13-22377-CIV-GOODMAN to the undersigned, ECF No. [39].
In both Motions now pending before the undersigned in the Garcia matter and the
Cordova matter, the Defendants explain that although they initially moved to compel
3

arbitration, the arbitration process became overly costly thereby prompting the
Defendants to request that the Court reopen those cases, lift the respective stays in the
cases, and consolidate those two actions along with the case of Julio Hernandez
Hernandez v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Felix F. Acosta, Alex Ros, 15-23486-CIV-FAM, ECF
No. [28].
In Response to those Motions, the Plaintiffs argued that instead of the cases
being reopened and consolidated with the other similar FLSA cases, a default should be
entered against the Defendants as to liability, and the matter should be tried before a jury
as to damages only, due to the Defendants’ failure to adequately participate in
arbitration. In support of that request, Plaintiffs noted that the arbitrator in Garcia issued
an Order Terminating Arbitration because the Defendants did not pay the arbitrator’s
fees in violation of the applicable rules. Thus, Plaintiffs contend that it would be
appropriate for all matters to be consolidated with Garcia, the oldest of the three cases
for purposes of a jury trial on all three matters, as to damages, only. 2
Before Magistrate Judge Goodman ruled on the Defendants’ Renewed Motion to
Reopen the Cordova action and consolidate it with the other cases, on April 26, 2017, the
Honorable Federico A. Moreno granted the Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Default
Judgment, Jury Trial as to Damages, Sanctions and for Miscellaneous Relief that had
been filed in Julio Hernandez Hernandez v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Felix F. Acosta, Alex
Ros, 15-23486-CIV-MORENO, ECF No. [36]. In the Order granting that Motion, the Court
stated the following:
The Court compelled arbitration in this case at the
Defendant’s request. The arbitrator terminated the arbitration
proceedings when Defendant ceased paying costs.
Defendant claims that the cost unexpectedly escalated
because Plaintiff opposed consolidation with the other cases
2

Plaintiffs note that the matters of Garcia and Cordova were consolidated in arbitration
but explain that the Hernandez matter was not consolidated at arbitration, and instead
proceeded before a different arbitrator.
4

Garcia v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Case No. 12-21111-CIVSIMONTON and Cordova v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Case No.
13-22377-GOODMAN.
ECF No. [36] at 1. On June 2, 2017, Judge Moreno entered a Final Default Judgment
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b) as to Defendants Acosta Tractors Inc., Felix F. Acosta and
Alex Ros, in the amount of $7,293.00, ECF No. [42]. The Defendants have now appealed
that Final Judgment to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, ECF No. [44].
II.

LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Consolidation Of Actions

In the Motions at bar, the Defendants seek to have the matters of Garcia and
Cordova consolidated. 3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 entitled “Consolidation; Separate Trials”
provides, inter alia, that a court may consolidate actions that involve a common question
law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (a)(2). “A district court's decision under Rule 42(a) is purely
discretionary,” Hendrix v. Raybestos–Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir.
1985)). In evaluating whether actions should be consolidated, the court must determine
the following:
[w]hether 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.
Id. (citations and quotations omitted). The undersigned concludes that the above
considerations weigh in favor of consolidating Garcia v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Case No.
12-21111-CIV-SIMONTON with Cordova v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Case No. 13-22377-CIV3

The Motions also seek to consolidate the matter of Julio Hernandez Hernandez v.
Acosta Tractors, Inc., Felix F. Acosta, Alex Ros, 15-23486-CIV-MORENO. Since
Hernandez has not been transferred to the undersigned, was resolved by the entry of
final judgment, and is pending on appeal, the motion is denied as moot as to Hernandez.
5

SIMONTON. These actions raise overtime wage violations under the FLSA, identify
Corporate Defendant Acosta Tractors, Inc., as the relevant employer for each Plaintiff
and Individual Defendant Felix F. Acosta as a corporate officer and/or owner manager of
the Corporate Defendant. Further, the Parties state that these actions were consolidated
for purposes of arbitration and Defendants seek to reopen both cases and restore both
cases to this Court’s active docket. Thus, both cases involve common questions of law
and fact and resolving these matters in one proceeding will ensure consistent
adjudications. Accordingly, Garcia v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Case No. 12-21111-CIVSIMONTON is hereby consolidated with Cordova v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Case No. 1322377-CIV-SIMONTON.
B. Stay Of Action Pending Resolution of Hernandez Appeal
As stated above, the Defendants in Julio Hernandez Hernandez v. Acosta
Tractors, Inc., Felix F. Acosta, Alex Ros, 15-23486-CIV-MORENO have filed a Notice of
Appeal challenging the District Court’s June 2, 2017 entry of Final Default Judgment
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b), which followed the denial of the Defendants’ Motion to
Reopen Case, Lift Stay and Consolidate, and the grant of the Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion
for Default Judgment, Jury Trial as to Damages, Sanctions and for Miscellaneous Relief.
Both of those Motions were predicated upon the Defendants’ purported failure to pay the
assigned arbitrator’s fees despite the fact that it was the Defendants who initially sought
to compel the Parties to attend arbitration.
A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as incident to its power
to control its own docket. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. N.
Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). In deciding whether to stay a case, courts consider
several factors including prejudice to the non-moving party, whether the requested stay
would simplify and clarify the issues, and whether the potential stay would reduce the
burden of litigation on the parties and on the court. Mackiewicz v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC,
6

No. 6:15–cv–465–Orl–18GJK, 2015 WL 11983233, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2015) (citation
omitted). Further, federal courts have exercised their power to stay a proceeding where
a pending decision in another court would “have a substantial or controlling effect on the
claims and issues in the stayed case.” Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. S. Fla. Water
Mgmt. Dist., 559 F.3d 1191, 1198 (11th Cir. 2009).
In this case, it is clear that the pending appeal related to the entry of Default Final
Judgment in Julio Hernandez Hernandez v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Felix F. Acosta, Alex
Ros, 15-23486-CIV-MORENO will bear on the legal issues presented in the Garcia and
Cordova matters, most significantly the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default against the
Defendants for failing to pay the arbitrator’s fees which resulted in the termination of
arbitration. Accordingly, staying the Garcia and Cordova actions until the resolution of
the appeal in Julio Hernandez Hernandez v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Felix F. Acosta, Alex
Ros, 15-23486-CIV-MORENO will simplify and clarify the issues, and reduce the burden of
litigation on the parties and on the court in these actions. Accordingly, the instant
actions are stayed pending the resolution of the appeal in Hernandez.
III.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion to Re-Open Case, Lift Stay
and Consolidate filed in Garcia v. Acosta Tractors, Inc. Felix F. Acosta and Frank P.
Acosta, Case No. 12-21111-CIV-SIMONTON, ECF No. [48], and Defendants’ Renewed
Motion to Re-Open Case, Lift Stay and Consolidate filed in Cordova v. Acosta Tractors,
Inc., and Felix F. Acosta, Case No. 13-22377-CIV-SIMONTON, ECF No. [28], are GRANTED,
in part. The case of Garcia v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Case No. 12-21111-CIV-SIMONTON is
hereby consolidated with the case of Cordova v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Case No. 1322377-CIV-SIMONTON. It is further

7

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall consolidate civil action Garcia v. Acosta
Tractors, Inc., Case No. 12-21111-CIV-SIMONTON with Cordova v. Acosta Tractors, Inc.,
Case No. 13-22377-CIV-SIMONTON. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively
close Case No. 13-22377-CIV-SIMONTON. The parties shall file pleadings, motions and
other papers only in Case No. 12-21111-CIV-SIMONTON. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all proceedings in Garcia v. Acosta Tractors,
Inc. and Cordova v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Consolidated Case No. 12-21111-CIVSIMONTON shall be stayed until the resolution of the appeal in Julio Hernandez
Hernandez v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Felix F. Acosta, Alex Ros, 15-23486-CIV-MORENO.
The Parties shall file a Motion to Reopen and Lift Stay in this action, if appropriate, within
thirty days of a mandate being issued or other resolution being reached in that case. At
that time, the Parties may file any appropriate motions regarding the resolution of the
consolidated case.
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers in Miami, Florida, on September 20, 2017.

___________________________________
ANDREA M. SIMONTON
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished via CM/ECF to:

All counsel of record

8