Pudlowski et al v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC et al

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's renewed motion to consolidate (#34) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall file all further documents in this case, McAllister v. St. Louis Rams, 4:16-cv-172. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/5/16. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RONALD MCALLISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE ST. LOUIS RAMS, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-172 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On July 6, 2016, this Court consolidated this matter with two later-filed lawsuits1,
all relating to St. Louis Rams football team’s decision to move the team to a new stadium
in Inglewood, California. Defendant sought to consolidate a third later-filed lawsuit,
Pudlowski, et al. v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, et al., No. 4:16-cv-00189-RLW (E.D. Mo.
removed February 11, 2016), as well. However, Judge White granted the Pudlowski
plaintiffs’ motion to remand that case to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis (4:16cv-00189, #49), and that order was stayed pending defendant’s appeal to the Eighth
Circuit (Id., #54), so the Court denied without prejudice the motion to consolidate as to
Pudlowski. The Eighth Circuit reversed the order of remand, the motion to remand has
now been denied (4:16cv189, #64), and defendants have renewed their motion to
consolidate Pudlowski with this case (#34).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits consolidation of cases if “actions
before the court involve a common question of law or fact.” The McAllister and
1

Envision, LLC, et al. v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00262-CDP
(E.D. Mo. removed Feb. 26, 2016); Arnold, et al. v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No.
4:16-cv-00297-SNLJ, (E.D. Mo. removed March 4, 2016).
1

Pudlowski plaintiffs suggest that their cases are too disparate to warrant consolidation.
The McAllister purported class includes all Personal Seat License (“PSL”) holders and
claims that either the PSL contracts are illusory and therefore invalid or, if the PSL
contracts are not illusory, then the Rams breached the contract, breached the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violated the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, §§ 407.010 et seq. (“MMPA”). Pudlowski’s plaintiffs allege the Rams
violated the MMPA by misrepresenting the Rams’ intention to leave St. Louis, causing
damages in the form of money spent for Rams’ merchandise, tickets, and concessions.
The McAllister plaintiff argues that the cases are different in that (1) Pudlowski’s
purported class consists of individuals who did not necessarily own PSLs, and (2)
Pudlowski includes only Missouri residents. Plaintiffs contend that discovery in
Pudlowski will focus on public statements by the Rams regarding whether they planned
to stay in St. Louis and inquiries into the Rams’ true intention. Further, plaintiffs contend
that damages in Pudlowski will be different and more complex than the McAllister case’s
claimed damages. Pudlowski alleges that the class paid more for tickets, refreshments,
and clothing than the value those items had if the Rams had been truthful about the
team’s intentions. McAllister, on the other hand, seeks a refund for the nine unusable
years of classmembers’ PSLs.
Despite these differences, the Court finds that consolidation of Pudlowski with the
other three cases will promote efficiency and will not prejudice any party. The proposed
class set forth in Pudlowski includes PSL holders because those individuals were
contractually obligated to purchase tickets to games played at the Rams’ St. Louis
stadium. The terms of the PSL contracts (and applicable limitations on liability) will
thus be at issue for both Pudlowski and McAllister class claims, and those issues are most
2

efficiently resolved through consolidation. The Court also notes that Pudlowski and
Arnold plaintiffs appear to argue that the Rams’ decision to relocate is at issue in their
claims, so multiple common issues are present. Although this Court has now ruled on
motions for judgment on the pleadings in the McAllister, Envision, and Arnold cases,
consolidation of Pudlowski with those cases will most efficiently apply consistent rulings
to all four matters.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s renewed motion to consolidate
(#34) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall file all further documents in this
case, McAllister v. St. Louis Rams, 4:16-cv-172.
Dated this 5th day of October, 2016.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3