ATALLA et al v. 7-ELEVEN, INC.

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM ORDER, ORDERED that 7-Eleven's request to consolidate the Sodhi Action with the Consolidated Action is DENIED. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 1/13/2014. (dmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

YOUNES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil No. 13-3500 RMB/JS
v.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
7-ELEVEN, INC.,
Defendant.
NAIK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil No. 13-4578 RMB/JS
v.

7-ELEVEN, INC.,
Defendant.
7-ELEVEN, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 13-3715 MAS/DEA
v.

SODHI, et al.,
Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon 7-Eleven, Inc.’s
(“7-Eleven”) pre-motion letter seeking leave to file a motion to

consolidate the above actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(a).

More specifically, 7-Eleven seeks to move for

an order consolidating 7-Eleven, Inc., v. Sodhi et al., Civil
Action No. 13-3715 (the “Sodhi Action”) with the already
consolidated Younes and Naik matters, Civil Action Nos. 13-3500
and 13-4578, respectively (the “Consolidated Action”).1
Plaintiffs in the Naik Action have filed a pre-motion letter that
opposes 7-Eleven’s proposed motion to consolidate.

As the

parties have fully set forth their positions in their pre-motion
letters, the Court sees no need for the filing of formal motions
and will address the merits of the parties’ respective
submissions.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court shall

deny 7-Eleven’s request that the above matters be consolidated.2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that when
actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending
before the court, the court may consolidate the actions or issue
any order to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
42(a).

The moving party bears the burden on a motion to

consolidate.

1

Fed. R. Civ. P.

In Re Consolidated Parlodel Litigation, 182 F.R.D.

These matters were consolidated for case management and
discovery purposes only.
2
For the reasons set forth herein, this Court need not
reach the merits of 7-Eleven’s arguments regarding a proposed
2

441, 444 (D.N.J. 1998).

In exercising its discretion to

consolidate matters, a court should weigh the interests of
judicial economy against the potential for delays, expense,
confusion, or prejudice.

The Court has considered these factors

and finds that consolidation of these actions is not appropriate.
While the counterclaims asserted in Sodhi may be similar to
those asserted in Naik, the matters are factually dissimilar:
The Sodhi matter is based on allegations that the defendant
franchisees “siphoned hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash
from six 7-Eleven stores,” [Civil Action No. 13-3715, Docket No.
7 at ¶1], whereas the Naik action is grounded in allegations that
“7-Eleven. . . misrepresents and misclassifies its relation with
store operators as francisees when they are in fact, employees
[and that] 7-Eleven “engages in. . . fraudulent schemes that are
abusive of its store operators. . . .” [Civil Action No. 13-4578,
Docket No. 4 at ¶¶ 1 & 3].
In addition, the Consolidated Actions are consolidated for
case management and discovery purposes only, and thus the parties
would still be required to file separate motion papers even if
this Court were to join the Sodhi matter with the Consolidated
Action.

Most importantly, this Court finds that considerations

motion for judgment on the pleadings.
3

of judicial economy weigh most heavily in favor of keeping these
matters separate.

A review of the docket filings in the Sodhi

matter reveal that discovery is in process and significant orders
and motions and have already been filed, including the issuance
of an order granting a motion for temporary restraints and
security and a pending motion in limine for sanctions against
defendants for spoliation of evidence.
No. 13-3735 at Docket Nos. 26 and 59.

See e.g., Civil Action
Because of the Sodhi

matter has already progressed to the extent that the parties have
filed significant motions and the Judges already assigned to that
matter have gained familiarity with the same, this Court finds
that consolidation of the Sodhi matter with the Consolidated
Action would not “facilitate the administration of justice.”
Liberty Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Marketing Corp. et al., 149
F.R.D. 65, 80 (D.N.J. 1993).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS on this 13th day of January 2014,
ORDERED that 7-Eleven’s request to consolidate the Sodhi
Action with the Consolidated Action is DENIED.

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENEE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

4