Carnal v. Cuba, Missouri, City of et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to consolidate 17 is GRANTED and cases 4:15CV1816 CDP, 4:15CV1817 CEJ, 4:15CV1818 HEA, 4:15CV1819 HEA are consolidated for all purposes. All further filings shall be filed in Case No. 4:15CV1816 CDP only. The Clerk is ordered to administratively close case numbers 4:15CV1817 CEJ, 4:15CV1818 HEA, and 4:15CV1819 HEA. No further filings may be made in those cases, and any motions pending in them are denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than February 15, 2016 plaintiffs shall file a consolidated amended complaint setting out the claims of each of the four plaintiffs in one document. Defendants sh all file their answer to that consolidated amended complaint no later than February 29, 2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties seek any amendment to the Case Management Order because of this consolidation, they must file a motion to amend no later than February 29, 2016. If no motion is filed by that date, the parties will be bound by the Case Management Order and the Order Referring Case to Alternative Dispute Resolution previously entered in Case No. 4:15CV1816 CDP. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 2/5/2016. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ADAM CARNAL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF CUBA, MISSOURI, et al.,
Defendants.

DANE CORBETT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF CUBA, MISSOURI, et al.,
Defendants.

MICHAEL SHERMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF CUBA, MISSOURI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15 CV 1816 CDP

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15 CV 1817 CEJ

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15 CV 1818 HEA

JASON WILKERSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF CUBA, MISSOURI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15 CV 1819 HEA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Adam Carnal is a former employee police officer of the defendant
City of Cuba, Missouri. He alleges he was terminated from his employment in
retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, and he claims defendants
City of Cuba, Ray Mortimeyer, Paul Crow, and Henry Copling conspired to have
him removed from the City’s employment in order to cover up their own
wrongdoing. Carnal has now filed a motion to consolidate his own case with three
other pending cases, namely, Dane Corbett v. City of Cuba, Missouri, et al., No.
4:15-cv-1817 (CEJ); Michael Sherman v. City of Cuba, Missouri, et al., No. 4:15cv-1818 (HEA); and Jason Wilkerson v. City of Cuba, Missouri, et al., No. 4:15cv-1819 (HEA). Carnal’s motion has not been opposed by any of the defendants.
Rule 42(a) provides that a court may consolidate actions involving a
common question of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). The district court has
discretion in ruling on a motion to consolidate. Environmental Protection Agency

-2-

v. City of Green Forest, Arkansas, 921 F.2d 1394, 1402 (8th Cir.1990). On review
of the complaints filed by plaintiffs, I find that all four actions involve common
questions of law and fact. Each of the four plaintiffs is a former police officer with
the City of Cuba police department who participated in investigating, compiling,
and submitting to the City of Cuba’s Board of Alderman a list of complaints
against Cuba’s chief of police. The plaintiffs all allege the defendants conspired to
terminate them in retaliation for these activities, and they have each pled a First
Amendment retaliation claim and a civil conspiracy claim against defendants based
on the alleged events. Defendants Ray Mortimeyer, mayor of Cuba; Paul Crow,
Cuba’s chief of police; and the City of Cuba are named in all four actions. The
only material differences between the plaintiffs’ complaints are the specific
members of the Board of Alderman who are named as defendants. In his motion to
consolidate, plaintiff Carnal notes that this disparity reflects only the fact that
different members of the Board participated in each of the termination decisions.
In light of the significant overlap of questions of law and fact among these
cases, consolidation is warranted.
For administrative ease, I will direct that three of the cases be
administratively closed, and all further filings be made only in Case No.
4:15CV1816 CDP. I will also direct plaintiff to file a consolidated amended
complaint in that case, setting out the claims of each of the four plaintiffs in one
-3-

document. Defendants will be required to file an answer only to that consolidated
amended complaint, even though their answers to the amended complaints are past
due in three of the four cases. The court will also assume that the parties wish to
follow the Case Management Order previously entered in Case No. 4:15cv1816
CDP, unless the parties tell me otherwise.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to consolidate [17] is
GRANTED and cases 4:15CV1816 CDP, 4:15CV1817 CEJ, 4:15CV1818 HEA,
4:15CV1819 HEA are consolidated for all purposes. All further filings shall be
filed in Case No. 4:15CV1816 CDP only. The Clerk is ordered to
administratively close case numbers 4:15CV1817 CEJ, 4:15CV1818 HEA, and
4:15CV1819 HEA. No further filings may be made in those cases, and any
motions pending in them are denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than February 15, 2016
plaintiffs shall file a consolidated amended complaint setting out the claims of each
of the four plaintiffs in one document. Defendants shall file their answer to that
consolidated amended complaint no later than February 29, 2016.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties seek any amendment to the
Case Management Order because of this consolidation, they must file a motion to
amend no later than February 29, 2016. If no motion is filed by that date, the
-4-

parties will be bound by the Case Management Order and the Order Referring Case
to Alternative Dispute Resolution previously entered in Case No. 4:15CV1816
CDP.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of February, 2016.

-5-