Johnson v. Boilermaker Local # 374

Filing 21

OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING 17 MOTION to Consolidate Cases with Case No. 2:16-cv-00019-JTM-PRC by Defendant Boilermaker Local #374 and ORDERING consolidation of cause numbers 2:15-CV-54-RL-JEM and 2:16-CV-19-JTM-PRC. *ALL FUTURE FILINGS SHALL BE MADE IN 2:15-CV-54-RL-JEM ONLY* Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 3/16/2016. (lhc)(cc: Pla Johnson)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
KENNETH JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOILERMAKERS LOCAL #374,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 2:15-CV-54-RL-JEM

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Consolidation of the Instant Case
with Case No. 2:16-CV-00019-JTM-PRC [DE 17], filed by Defendant on February 26, 2016.
Defendant requests that this matter be consolidated with another case filed against it by Plaintiff,
cause number 2:16-CV-19-JTM-PRC. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion.
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).
The Court finds that the cases, both brought pursuant to Title VII and the ADEA against
Defendant for employment discrimination, involve common issues of law and fact. Discovery has
not yet begun in either case. Trying the cases separately would require duplication of efforts, both
on behalf of the parties and of the Court, and might result in inconsistent results.

Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s
Motion for Consolidation of the Instant Case with Case No. 2:16-CV-00019-JTM-PRC [DE 17] and
ORDERS consolidation of cause numbers 2:15-CV-54-RL-JEM and 2:16-CV-19-JTM-PRC.
All future filings shall be made in 2:15-CV-54-RL-JEM only.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of March, 2016.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:

All counsel of record
Plaintiff, pro se

2