Edwards v. PJ Ops Idaho, LLC et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. The joint Motion to Consolidate Cases (Dkt. 49 ) is GRANTED. 2. Case No. 1:18-cv-00037-DCN, Hollingsworth v. PJ Holdings KY, LLC et al., is hereby CONSOLIDATED with the above captioned case. 3. The P arties will submit any and all future filings only in Case No. 1:17-cv-00283-DCN which is now the lead case. The Parties will use the case caption as it appears herein in all future pleadings. A signed copy of this order will be placed in the file of Case No. 1:18-cv-00037-DCN. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Case No. 1:17-cv-00283-DCN
On behalf of himself and
those similarly situated,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
PJ OPS IDAHO, LLC, et al,
Pending before the Court is a Consent Motion to Consolidate Cases. Dkt. 49. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
Although the Motion to consolidate is unopposed, after the joint filing, Defendants
filed a notice in which they clarified that they do not oppose consolidation of the cases,
but they do oppose any amendments to the complaint. This concern regards the final line
of the consent motion, which reads, “Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court
to grant Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate and for leave to file the attached Consolidated
Amended Complaint.” Dkt. 49, at 3.
The Court notes that there was no attached Consolidated Amended Complaint, so
the Court does not know what amendments Plaintiffs are seeking. If the amended
complaint would simply add the name of the consolidated case parties, such is
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
unnecessary. By its very nature, consolidation means that the two cases merge. The Court
deems any and all related parties, claims, and filings in the companion case to be part of
the consolidated case.1
If, on the other hand, Plaintiffs seek to make other amendments to the Complaint,
the Court agrees with Defendants that a separate filing and motion will be necessary to
accomplish this. This decision to grant the motion therefore only applies to the
consolidation of the two cases, not amendment of the Complaint.
On July 5, 2017, Cory Edwards, as named Plaintiff, filed the above captioned case
on behalf of himself and those similarly situated against PJ Ops Idaho, LLC, and other
“PJ Ops” defendants alleging unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages for
delivery drivers, such as himself. Since the initial filing, numerous plaintiffs have opted
into this suit.
On September 8, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Conditionally Certify a FLSA
Class Action and to Authorize Notice. Dkt. 29. However, before the completion of
briefing in that matter, the parties became aware that James Hollingsworth filed a lawsuit
As explained in the “ORDER” section of this decision, this case (1:17-cv-00283) will become
the lead case in the consolidated action, wherein all future filings will take place. All filings in
the other case (1:18-cv-00037) are essentially “incorporated” into this case. There is no need to
refile or duplicate anything that has taken place in 1:18-cv-00037 or change the complaint or
other documents in 1:17-cv-00283 to match filings in 1:18-cv-00037.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
in United States District Court for the District of Kansas based upon the same set of facts
and circumstances.2 The Court and Counsel elected to unofficially “stay” any action in
this case until a determination could be reached regarding the Kansas case. On January
23, 2018, the Parties jointly moved the District of Kansas for an order transferring the
case to the District of Idaho. The District of Kansas granted the same, and upon transfer
to the District of Idaho, the Clerk of the Court transferred that case to the undersigned.
The parties then jointly moved for consolidation of the two cases.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 42(a) authorizes a district court to consolidate cases that share “a common
question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The Court has broad discretion to order
consolidation, and in exercising that discretion should “weigh the saving of time and
effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay or expenses that it
would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).
As this Motion is uncontested, the Court will not undertake an in-depth analysis of
the various factors relied upon when weighing consolidation but will simply note that
these cases clearly share common questions of law and fact and consolidation will not
cause any prejudice, inconvenience, or undue delay. To the contrary, consolidation will
avoid duplicative litigation and be an efficient use of judicial resources.
This Kansas case (2:17-cv-02590) is now Idaho Case 1:18-cv-00037-DCN.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
To that end, under Rule 42(a), the Court will order these cases consolidated.
IT IS ORDERED:
The joint Motion to Consolidate Cases (Dkt. 49) is GRANTED.
Case No. 1:18-cv-00037-DCN, Hollingsworth v. PJ Holdings KY, LLC et
al., is hereby CONSOLIDATED with the above captioned case.
The Parties will submit any and all future filings only in Case No. 1:17-cv00283-DCN which is now the lead case. The Parties will use the case
caption as it appears herein in all future pleadings. A signed copy of this
order will be placed in the file of Case No. 1:18-cv-00037-DCN.
DATED: February 26, 2018
David C. Nye
U.S. District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?