Martinez v. Cargill Meat Solutions

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - It is hereby recommended to United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon that Haferland, et al. v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., Case No. 8:09-cv-247 be reassigned to United States District Court Judge Richard G. Kopf. Def endant's motion to consolidate will be held in abeyance pending reassignment of Haferland, et al. v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., Case No. 8:09-cv-247 to the undersigned. The Clerk of the court is directed to provide a copy of this order to United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon and United States Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copies provided as directed via email)(GJG)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA JUAN MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and ANTONIO GUZMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS, Corporation, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4:09CV3079 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Defendant's motion to consolidate this case with Haferland, et al. v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., Case No. 8:09-cv-247 ("Haferland") and Defendant's request to reassign Haferland to the undersigned (filing 41). Defendant contends that this case should be consolidated with Haferland and that Haferland should be reassigned because the two cases present common issues of law and fact. Plaintiffs do not oppose consolidation or reassignment. However, the Haferland plaintiffs have filed an objection to consolidation and reassignment in the Haferland case, which is currently before United States District Court Judge Joseph F. Battalion. (Haferland, et al. v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., Case No. 8:09-cv247, Filing 25.) Because the court finds that the two cases are related as defined by the local rules, and this action was filed three months before the Haferland action, the court will recommend to Judge Battalion that Haferland be reassigned. Defendant's motion to consolidate will be held in abeyance pending reassignment. Under the local rules, cases are related when they involve some or all of the same issues of fact or arise out of the same transaction. NEGenR 1.4(a)(4)(C)(iii). This case was filed on April 23, 2009, as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The action was filed on behalf of current and former employees of Defendant's Schuyler, Nebraska facility who allegedly worked without pay while donning and doffing personal protective equipment. Haferland, which was filed on July 22, 2009, is also a FLSA collective action for alleged unpaid wages for donning and doffing at Defendant's Schuyler facility. Clearly, the two cases are related. Under the local rules, related cases may be reassigned to the district judge with the earlier filed or lowest numbered case. NEGenR 1.4. Thus, applying the local rules, I will recommend to Judge Bataillon that the Haferland action be reassigned to the undersigned. Because the Haferland plaintiffs have filed an objection to consolidation and reassignment in their respective action, this court will delay ruling on the motion to consolidate filed in this case pending reassignment of the Haferland action. IT IS ORDERED: 1. It is hereby recommended to United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon that Haferland, et al. v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., Case No. 8:09-cv-247 be reassigned to United States District Court Judge Richard G. Kopf; Defendant's motion to consolidate will be held in abeyance pending reassignment of Haferland, et al. v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., Case No. 8:09-cv-247 to the undersigned; The Clerk of the court is directed to provide a copy of this order to United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon and United States Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. 2 2. 3. December 8, 2009. BY THE COURT: Richard G. Kopf United States District Judge 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?