Petri v. Valarity, LLC

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to consolidate [Doc. # 48 ] is denied.. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 11/5/15. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSEPH PETRI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VALARITY, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-72 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to consolidate this matter
with Joseph Petri v. Mercy Health d/b/a Mercy Hospital St. Louis, 4:15-CV-1296
(CDP). Valarity, LLC, the defendant in this matter, and Mercy Health, the defendant
in the related case, have filed responses in opposition to the motion and the issues
are fully briefed.
I.

Background

On January 13, 2015, plaintiff Joseph Petri filed this action (“the Valarity
action”) bringing claims that defendant Valarity, LLC, violated provisions of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1962 et seq., and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. §§ 227 et seq., while
attempting to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed by plaintiff to Mercy Health.
On July 22, 2015, plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint to add Mercy Health
as a defendant in this action and to bring TCPA claims on behalf of a class. The
court denied the motion on August 12, 2015, finding that plaintiff had not met the
Rule 16(b) “good cause” standard for amending pleadings outside the deadline set
forth in the case management order. See Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532

F.3d 709, 716 (8th Cir. 2008) (court required to apply Rule 16, rather than Rule 15,
when addressing motion to amend filed after established scheduling deadline for
amending pleadings). On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a separate class action
complaint against Mercy Health for TCPA violations on behalf of himself and all
similarly-situated others (“the Mercy action”). On September 18, 2015, plaintiff
accepted an offer of judgment in the Valarity case with respect to his FDCPA claims.
II.

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) states that “If actions before the court
involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the
actions.” The party seeking consolidation has the burden of showing the
commonality of factual and legal issues, and the court must examine “the special
underlying facts” with “close attention” before ordering consolidation. In re
Repetitive Stress Injury Litig., 11 F.3d 368, 373 (2d Cir. 1993). The purpose of
consolidation is to promote convenience and economy in administration and is not
appropriate if it “leads to inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party.”
PB & J Software, LLC v. Acronis, Inc., No. 4:12-CV-690 SNLJ, 2012 WL 4815132, at
*2 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 10, 2012) (citing Enterprise Bank v. Saettele, 21 F.3d 233, 235
(8th Cir. 1994), and EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 1998)).
Plaintiff notes that this court has previously consolidated cases bringing
FDCPA claims against defendant Valarity. See Joseph Busch v. Valarity, LLC,
No.4:12-CV2372 (JAR) (E.D. Mo. Jan. 31, 2013). The cases consolidated in Busch
involved identical allegations brought by nine individuals against a single defendant.
In contrast, the plaintiff here seeks to consolidate cases naming different
defendants. Furthermore, discovery in the Valarity action will close on December

2

31, 2015, while there has not yet been a case management order entered in the
Mercy case. The Mercy case is a purported class action, which typically imposes
different procedural requirements than the single-plaintiff action, and consolidation
would likely delay proceedings in the Valarity case during class discovery and
certification in the Mercy case. Under these circumstances, the court declines to
consolidate this action with the Mercy action.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to consolidate [Doc. #48] is
denied.

CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of November, 2015.

3