Russell v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.

Filing 119

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 81 Motion to Consolidate Cases for purposes of discovery and trial. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
EZEQUIEL OLIVARES ABARCA,
individually nd on behalf of
all those similarly situated,
et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.,
)
and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
WILLIAM SMITH, on behalf of
)
himself and all others
)
similarly situated, and on
)
behalf of the general public, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.,
)
d/b/a C.L. WERNER, INC., a
)
corporation, and DOES 1-100, )
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:14CV319

8:15CV287

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendants Werner
Enterprises, Inc., and Drivers Management, LLC’s (collectively,
“Werner”) motion to consolidate Abarca et al., v. Werner, et al.,
Case No. 8:14CV319 (“Abarca”), with Smith v. Werner, et al., Case
No. 8:15CV287 (“Smith”).

The plaintiffs in the Abarca case filed

a statement regarding the motion to consolidate (Filing No. 94 in

8:14CV319) stating that they did not oppose the defendants’
motion to consolidate.
brief in opposition.

The plaintiff in Smith did not file a
For the reasons explained below, the motion

to consolidate will be granted.
Background
Werner is a large national trucking company with its
headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska.

Both of the above-mentioned

plaintiffs allege Werner violated various wage and hour laws.
The two cases involve similar allegations.

However, the Abarca

plaintiffs pointed out differences between the two cases (See
Filing No. 94).

Both cases allege violations under California

law; however, Abarca has asserted additional claims under the
Nebraska Wage and Hour Act and the Nebraska Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

The Abarca plaintiffs generally do not oppose

consolidation and the Smith plaintiff was silent on the matter.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows for
consolidation of cases involving common issues of law or fact as
a matter of convenience and economy in judicial administration.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a).

“The district court is given broad

discretion to decide whether consolidation would be desirable and
the decision inevitably is contextual.”

Cisler v. Paul A.

Willsie Co., Case No. 8:09CV365, 2010 WL 3237222, *2 (D. Neb.
-2-

Aug. 13, 2010).

When ruling on a motion to consolidate, "[t]he

court must weigh the saving of time and effort that would result
from consolidation against any inconvenience, expense, or delay
that it might cause."

Id. (citation omitted).

Lawsuits

involving the same parties are "apt candidates for
consolidation."

Id. (quotation and citation omitted).

However,

consolidation is inappropriate "if it leads to inefficiency,
inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party."

EEOC v. HBE

Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 1998).
After reviewing the matter, the Court concludes that
consolidating the cases is appropriate.
issues of law and fact.

The cases involve common

In addition, both cases are in the

initial stages of discovery and discovery on the claims will
overlap.

Consolidation will conserve judicial resources, as well

as the resources of the parties.
grant the defendants’ motion.

As a result, the Court will

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Werner’s motion to consolidate
(Filing No. 81 in 8:14CV319; Filing No. 32 in 8:15CV287) is
granted for purposes of discovery and trial.
DATED this 19th day of November, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-3-