Cortez et al v. Nebraska Beef
ORDER denying (345) Motion for Reconsideration; denying (351) Motion to Consolidate Cases; denying (359) Motion for discovery in case 8:08-cv-00090-JFB -TDT; denying (454) Motion for Reconsideration; denying (460) Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 8:08-cv-00099-JFB -TDT. Member Cases: 8:08-cv-00090-JFB -TDT, 8:08-cv-00099-JFB -TDTOrdered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (SMS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
FERMIN CORTEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly
situated individuals, et al.,
NEBRASKA BEEF, INC., and
NEBRASKA BEEF, LTD.,
AVID CHUOL, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated individuals,
NEBRASKA BEEF, Ltd.,
This matter is before the court on a number of motions: defendants’ motion for
reconsideration, Filing No. 345; defendants’ motion for consolidation, Filing No. 351; and
plaintiffs’ motion for discovery, Filing No. 359, all in case 8:08CV90. These same motions
are filed in case number 8:08CV99, as Filing Nos. 454 (reconsideration) and 460
(consolidate). The court will refer to the documents in 8:08CV90, as it is the lead case.
Motion for Reconsideration, Filing No. 345
Defendants move this court for reconsideration of the court’s referral to the United
States Attorney for review of matters that arose in this case. The court has previously
addressed this issue in Filing No. 363, Order dated August 2, 2011. The defendants
thereafter filed a reply brief, but the arguments raised no new issues that need to be
revisited by this court. The court made the referral. It is up to the United States Attorney’s
Office to determine whether to proceed or not. Accordingly, the court will deny this motion.
Motion for Discovery, Filing No. 359
During the hearing on August 2, 2011, plaintiffs made an oral motion for discovery.
The court denied it at that time without prejudice to reassertion at a later date. Filing No.
363. Accordingly, this motion is denied as moot. However, if the plaintiffs have not
received the documents as ordered in Filing No. 363, the plaintiffs are free to motion this
court for appropriate relief.
Motion for Consolidation, Filing No. 351
Defendants move this court to permit consolidation of these two cases with the case
of George Gully, etc. v. Ken Bell, 8:10CV308. Defendants contend that these cases have
common questions of law and fact with similar evidence likely at trial. Defendants further
assert that such consolidation will not result in inconvenience, cost or prejudice, nor will it
delay the trial. Further, these three cases involve the same counsel. However, plaintiffs
argue that this is another delay tactic. The Gully case had undergone no discovery at the
time of this motion nor had it undergone class certification proceedings. It was filed
approximately two years after the cases currently before the court. Plaintiffs argue it will
delay the trial even further. The court has carefully reviewed the cases and finds that this
motion should be denied for all the reasons stated by the plaintiffs.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:
1. The motion for reconsideration, Filing No. 345, is denied.
2. The motion for discovery, Filing No. 359, is denied.
3. The motion to consolidate, Filing No. 351, is denied.
DATED this 1st day of November, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Chief United States District Judge
*This opinion m ay contain hyperlinks to other docum ents or W eb sites. The U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recom m end, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services
or products they provide on their W eb sites. Likewise, the court has no agreem ents with any of these third
parties or their W eb sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any
hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to som e other site does not affect
the opinion of the court.
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?