Robert v. South Bend Indiana City of et al

Filing 46

OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice and with leave to refile Defendants' 39 Motion to Consolidate. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 01/22/2016. (rmn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
THEODORE ROBERT,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF SOUTH BEND INDIANA, et al., )
Defendants.
)

CAUSE NO. 2:13-CV-274-JD-JEM

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate [DE 39], filed by
Defendants on July 16, 2015. Defendants request that this matter be consolidated with a case filed
by Plaintiff against the same or similar defendants, cause number 2:15-CV-173-JTM-PRC. Plaintiff
filed a response on August 4, 2015.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that “[i]f 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).
Consolidation is appropriate for “cases that share the same questions of law or fact and where
consolidation would not result in prejudice to any party.” Back v. Bayh, 933 F. Supp. 738, 748 (N.D.
Ind. 1996) (citing Fleishman v. Prudential-Bache Sec., 103 F.R.D. 623, 624 (E.D. Wis. 1984)).
Courts “consider such factors as judicial economy, avoiding delay, and avoiding inconsistent or
conflicting results” as well as “as the possibility of juror confusion or administrative difficulties.”
Habitat Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. Kimbell, 250 F.R.D. 390, 394 (E.D. Wis. 2008).
Defendants argue that the cases involve common issues of law and fact because both stem
from Plaintiff’s employment with the South Bend Police Department, are against the same or similar
defendants, and assert claims of race discrimination including workplace harassment. Although
Defendants are correct that discovery has not begun in either case, and that at the time the instant

Motion was filed there were pending motions to dismiss in both cases, judicial economy does
support the consolidation of the cases at this time. In the above-captioned case, Defendants have
already been successful in moving to dismiss a number of Plaintiff’s claims, and have now moved
to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, in large part because of Plaintiff’s failure to
cure deficiencies as ordered. In the later-filed case, Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief has been granted or failure to meet pleading
standards. The motions pending in the two cases have the potential to resolve or clarify the claims
in each case, but on different legal bases. Consolidating the cases at this stage would lead to
confusion and would likely delay the proceedings. However, once the question of which claims will
proceed is resolved in each of the cases, if both cases remain pending and continue to involve
common questions of law and fact it may be appropriate for the Court to revisit this question and
consider consolidation.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES without prejudice and with leave to refile
Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate [DE 39].
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2016.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:

All counsel of record

2