Garner v. The City of Country Club Hills, Illinois et al

Filing 82

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 5/23/2012: For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's motion for reassignment and consolidation 47 . Pursuant to I.O.P. 13(e), this Cour t recommends that the Executive Committee enter an order (1) directing that the undersigned judge preside over coordinated pre-trial proceedings in Case Nos. 11-CV-5164, 11-CV-5551, 11-CV-5766, and 11-CV-8474 and (2) designating Magistrate Judge Kim to supervise a coordinated discovery process in those four cases. (For further details see text below.) Mailed notice. (psm, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Robert Dow, Jr.

CASE NUMBER

11 C 5164

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

5/23/2012

Garner vs. Country Club Hills et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s motion for reassignment and
consolidation [47]. Pursuant to I.O.P. 13(e), this Court recommends that the Executive Committee enter an order
(1) directing that the undersigned judge preside over coordinated pre-trial proceedings in Case Nos. 11-CV-5164,
11-CV-5551, 11-CV-5766, and 11-CV-8474 and (2) designating Magistrate Judge Kim to supervise a coordinated
discovery process in those four cases.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
I.

Factual Background

On July 29, 2011, Plaintiff Michelle Garner filed the instant suit against the City of Country Club Hills
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of her First Amendment rights. Her claims stem from the
Country Club Hills City Council meeting and vote on July 11, 2011, which resulted in budget cuts and the
elimination of certain jobs. Specifically, Garner alleges that Defendants violated her First Amendment rights
when they eliminated her position as an act of political retaliation following her support of the Mayor’s
successful re-election campaign and that she suffered physical and psychological injuries as a result.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss [38] Garner’s amended complaint on October 6, 2011.
On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff Chanay Mackay filed a separate law suit, 11-CV-5551 (J. Pallmeyer), against
the City of Country Club Hills pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that her position was purposefully and
adversely impacted as a result of the City Counsel’s July 11, 2011 budget vote and that she was discriminated
against due to her gender. One week later, on August 22, 2011, Plaintiffs Wanda Comein, Henrietta Turner,
Paula Smothers, Alison Brothen, and Margaret Seltzner (collectively the “Comein Plaintiffs”) filed a
complaint, 11-CV-5766 (J. Lefkow), against the City of Country Club Hills and Aldermen Lockett and Burris
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. They allege that they suffered reverse racial and
gender discrimination as a result of the City Council’s July 11, 2011 meeting, which eliminated their
positions as a means of political retaliation. Finally, on November 28, 2011, Plaintiff Madeline Holland filed
a complaint, 11-CV-8474 (J. Darrah), against the City pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that her position
was terminated in retaliation for her support of the Mayor’s reelection campaign.
Defendants argue that all four actions derive from the same set of alleged operative facts and that they raise
identical and interrelated issues of fact and law, necessitating their reassignment to this Court pursuant to
11C5164 Garner vs. Country Club Hills et al.

Page 1 of 3

STATEMENT
Local Rule 40.4, and consolidation with this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2) for the purposes of
discovery and trial.
II.

Analysis

In the Northern District of Illinois, cases are randomly assigned to a district judge. L.R. 40.1. This system
can lead to situations in which two or more cases that are closely related will be pending before different
judges. In such an instance, Local Rule 40.4 provides a mechanism whereby parties can request that the laterfiled case be reassigned to the judge who is presiding over the lower-numbered, earlier-filed case. The rule
promotes efficient use of judicial resources by minimizing duplication of effort on cases that have a great deal
in common. To obtain reassignment of a case, a movant must first show that the case to be reassigned is
“related” to a previously filed case and then demonstrate that reassignment would promote efficient use of
judicial resources under four specific criteria.
To be “related,” two cases must satisfy at least one of the four criteria laid out in Rule 40.4(a): the cases
share some issues of fact or law; they involve the same property; each grows out of the same transaction or
occurrence; or they involve one or more of the same classes if the motion is made in the context of multiple
class action suits. See also Global Patent Holdings, LLC v. Green Bay Packers, Inc., 2008 WL 1848142, at
*3 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2008). Here, Defendants argue—and the Court agrees—that all four actions share some
issues of fact or law and grow out of the same transaction or occurrence. Specifically, all four actions allege
that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights following July 11, 2011 City Council meeting.
Even if two cases are found to be related, however, the moving party must also meet each of four criteria
specified in L.R. 40.4(b) before a case will be reassigned. First, both cases must be pending in this district.
Second, a substantial savings of judicial time and effort must be likely to result from the reassignment of the
cases to a single judge. Third, the earlier-filed case must be at a point where designating a later-filed case
would not be likely to substantially delay the proceedings in the earlier case. Fourth, the cases must be
susceptible to disposition in a single proceeding. Id. at *3-4.
Furthermore, Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) “provides that “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact
are pending before the court, it may (1) order a joint hearing or trial of any or all matters in the actions; (2)
order all the actions consolidated; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”
The Court need look no further than to the respective docket sheets to conclude that the first condition of L.R.
40.4(b) is satisfied. All four cases are pending in the Northern District of Illinois. The Court also agrees with
Defendants that the third factor is satisfied. All four actions are at an early stage and reassignment would not
result in a substantial delay in this action.
With respect to the second and fourth conditions, Defendants, as the moving party, bear the burden of
indicating “the extent to which the conditions required by section (b) will be met if the cases are found to be
related.” L.R. 40.4(c)(2). On the second factor, Defendants argue that reassigning the cases will promote the
conservation of judicial resources because the Defendants are the same in all four cases and many of the same
witnesses and parties will need to be deposed and testify in all four cases. On the fourth factor, Defendants
argue that the cases are susceptible to disposition in a single proceeding because the cases originate from the
same core of facts. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that while there may be some overlapping issues of
law and fact, each Plaintiff brings forth claims that require a distinct factual and legal inquiry. The Court
agrees with Plaintiffs; at this time, reassignment is inappropriate. Plaintiff Garner alleged that her First
11C5164 Garner vs. Country Club Hills et al.

Page 2 of 3

STATEMENT
Amendment rights were violated when she was harassed by Defendants Locket and Burris and that she
suffered physical and psychological injuries. The Comein Plaintiffs alleged that they were targeted because
of their race and gender. Mackey alleges that Defendants lowered her pay to induce her to resign from her
position. And Holland alleges that her position was terminated in retaliation for her support of the Mayor’s
reelection campaign. Because the Plaintiffs’ claims vary, it is not clear at this time whether multiple trials will
be necessary to resolve the contested factual issues. See Apostolou v. Geldermann, Inc., 919 F. Supp. 289,
292 (N.D. Ill. 1996). Therefore, the Court is not convinced that reassigning and consolidating the cases is
likely to result in a substantial savings of judicial time and effort or that the cases can be disposed of in a
single disposition. Id.
The Court does recognize, however, that there is a strong commonality between the cases, and that it is in the
interest of judicial efficiency to coordinate and consolidate the cases for the purposes of discovery pursuant to
Rule 42(a). Id; see also Levels v. Cannonball Express, Inc., 2007 WL 1266660, at *1 (S.D. Ill. 2007).
Moreover, Defendants and Plaintiffs agree that coordination of discovery would be beneficial because of the
significant overlap in depositions. Therefore, pursuant to I.O.P. 13(e), this Court recommends that the
Executive Committee enter an order (1) directing that the undersigned judge preside over coordinated pretrial proceedings in Case Nos. 11-CV-5164, 11-CV-5551, 11-CV-5766, and 11-CV-8474 and (2) designating
Magistrate Judge Kim to supervise a coordinated discovery process in those four cases. If at a later time it
appears that reassignment and consolidation is appropriate for trial, any party can file a motion requesting the
court reassign and consolidate the cases for the purpose of all further proceedings. Apostolou, 919 F. Supp. at
292.
III.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for reassignment and consolidation [47] is granted in part and
denied in part. Pursuant to I.O.P. 13(e), this Court recommends that the Executive Committee enter an order
(1) directing that the undersigned judge preside over coordinated pre-trial proceedings in Case Nos. 11-CV5164, 11-CV-5551, 11-CV-5766, and 11-CV-8474 and (2) designating Magistrate Judge Kim to supervise a
coordinated discovery process in those four cases.

11C5164 Garner vs. Country Club Hills et al.

Page 3 of 3