General Drivers, Warehousemen, and Helpers, Local Union No. 89 v. Clariant Corporation

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 4/21/2016 - 47 Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate is DENIED. cc: Counsel(DAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 89

v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-00524-CRS

CLARIANT CORPORATION

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff moves to consolidate case 3:16-CV-00051-JHM into this action. Defendant filed
a response indicating it has no objection to Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate. The other action
concerns the same parties as this case and is currently in front of Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr.
The basis of the action in this Court is whether the Court should compel the parties to
arbitration based on the existence or non-existence of a settlement agreement. In this Court’s
September 15, 2015 Order and Opinion, the Court determined a settlement agreement existed
and arbitration was unwarranted under the terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.
ECF Nos. 38 and 39. In ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider that Order and Opinion, the
Court stressed whether the parties breached that agreement was a subsequent and separate matter
to this case. ECF No. 44. Judicial efficiency and economy do not move this Court to consolidate
the two matters.
The Court does acknowledge some factual similarity between the two cases. Therefore, if
the parties wish to undertake the other matter as a standalone action in this Court, the parties may
request Judge McKinley transfer that case. This Court would be willing to receive that
standalone case.
The Court being sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
that Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate (DN 47) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

April 21, 2016

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc