Adams v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company

Filing 68

OPINION AND ORDER: Court DENIES 52 Motion for Consolidation Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 42.2. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 6/22/2012. (tc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
JOSEPH A. ADAMS,

)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE )
COMPANY,
)
)
Defendant
)

CIVIL NO. 2:10 cv 469

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion for Consolidation Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 42.2 [DE 52] filed by the plaintiff, Joseph
A. Adams, on December 7, 2011.

For the reasons set forth below,

the motion is DENIED.
Background
The plaintiff, Joseph Adams, filed a complaint against his
employer, Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), on
November 29, 2010, alleging:
Count I, "Title VII of Civil Rights Act," for
acts of racial discrimination;
Count II, "Hostile Environment in Violation
of Title VII," for racial harassment;
Count III, "Violation of the ADA Amendments
Act (ADAAA)," for "adverse employment decisions based on [Plaintiff’s] actual or perceived disability";

Count IV, "Hostile Environment in Violation
of the ADA Amendments Act," for harassing
conduct related to Plaintiff’s "loss time
injury" or on the basis of his perceived
disability;
Count V, "Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress";
Count VI, "Retaliation Under Title VII";
Count VII, "Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981,"
also for racial discrimination;
Count VIII, "Hostile Environment in Violation
of Section 1981," also for racial harassment;
Count IX, "Retaliation Under Section 1981,";
and
Count X, "Breach of Contract," allegedly
committed by Defendant with respect to its
collective-bargaining agreement with Plaintiff’s union.
Adams subsequently filed a complaint against his union, United
Steel Workers Local 12775, alleging breach of the duty of fair
representation.

NIPSCO and Local 12775 filed a motion to dismiss

in their respective cases.

While the motions remained pending,

Adams moved the court to consolidate the cases.

The motion to

consolidate was stayed pending ruling on the motions to dismiss.
Judge Van Bokkelen entered an Opinion and Order in the present
matter on April 13, 2012, dismissing Counts I, III, IV, and X.
The motion to dismiss in the matter between Adams and Local 12775
was denied as moot.

The motion to consolidate is now ripe.

2

Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides:
If actions before the court involve a common
question of law or fact, the court may:
(1) join for hearing or trial any
or all matters at issue in the
actions;
(2) consolidate the actions; or
(3) issue any other orders to avoid
unnecessary cost or delay.
The granting of consolidation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

Star Insurance Company v. Risk Marketing Group, Inc., 561

F.3d 656, 660 (7th Cir. 2009); King v. Gen. Elec. Co., 960 F.2d
617, 626 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Knauer, 149 F.2d 519,
520 (7th Cir. 1945). Consolidation is preferred if it will promote judicial economy and efficiency without prejudice to the
parties. See Devlin v. Transportation Communications Interna-

tional Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2nd Cir. 1999); Lewis v. ACB
Business Services, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 412–13 (6th Cir. 1998);
Cantrell v. GAF Corporation, 999 F.2d 1007, 1010–11 (6th Cir.
1993). The court should consider "whether the risks of prejudice
and possible confusion were overborne by the risk of inconsistent
adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on
the parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by
multiple lawsuits, and the length of time required to conclude

3

multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense
to all concerned." Arnold v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 681 F.2d
186, 193 (4th Cir. 1982); Ikerd v. Lapworth, 435 F.2d 197, 204
(7th Cir. 1970); Van Patten v. Wright, 2009 WL 1886010, *2 (E.D.
Wis. 2009); Back v. Carter, 933 F.Supp. 738, 748 (N.D. Ind.
1996). The burden is on the moving party to show that consolidation is appropriate in light of these concerns. Internet Law

Library, Inc. v. South-ridge Capital Management, LLC, 208 F.R.D.
59, 61 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
Adams' complaint in this action and against Local 12775
raises allegations under Section 301 of the Labor Management
Relations Act.

Adams alleges that NIPSCO breached several

provisions of the collective bargaining agreement and that Local
12775 breached its duty of fair representation.

To prevail on

both claims, Adams will need to establish both that NIPSCO
breached the collective bargaining agreement and that the union
breached its duty of fair representation.

DelCostello v. Inter-

national Brothers of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 165, 103 S.Ct.
2281, 2291, 76 L.Ed. 476 (1983)("To prevail against either the
company or the Union, . . . [employee-plaintiffs] must not only
show that their discharge was contrary to the contract but must
also carry the burden of demonstrating a breach of duty by the
Union")(citing United Parcel Service v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56,

4

66-67, 101 S.Ct. 1559, 1565-66, 67 L.Ed.2d 732 (1981).

Adams

argues that because he will need to establish the same facts to
prevail there are overlapping issues between the two cases.
However, on April 13, 2012, Judge Van Bokkelen entered an
order dismissing Adams’ claim against NIPSCO for breaching the
collective bargaining agreement.

The claims that remain pending

against NIPSCO include race discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation under Title VII and
42 U.S.C. §1981.

These claims are unrelated to the claim against

Local 12775 for breach of the duty of good faith.

Therefore,

there no longer remains a common question of law or fact.
_______________
Based on the foregoing, the Motion for Consolidation Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rule 42.2 [DE 52] filed by the plaintiff, Joseph A. Adams,
on December 7, 2011, is DENIED.
ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2012

s/ ANDREW P. RODOVICH
United States Magistrate Judge

5