Baker et al v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. et al

Filing 11

ORDER: It is Ordered that these two actions (1:16-CV-220 and 1:16-CV-292) are considered RELATED and therefore the action shall be assigned to District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn and Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 3/18/2016. (jmb) Modified on 3/18/2016 to modify docket text wording. (jmb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LISA TIFFT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

1:16-cv-0292 (BKS/TWD)

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE
PLASTICS CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

MARILYN BAKER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

1:16-cv-0220 (LEK/DJS)

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE
PLASTICS CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On March 16, 2016, Plaintiffs Lisa Tifft and Marilyn Peckham (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Notice
of Related Cases as directed by General Order 12(G), alleging that their action, Tifft v. Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics Corp., No. 16-cv-292 (BKS/TWD), may be related to Baker v. Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics Corp., No. 16-cv-220 (LEK/DJS). No. 16-cv-292, Dkt. No. 4 (“Notice”).
Pursuant to General Order 12(G)(2), cases are “related” where, “because of the similarity of
facts and legal issues or because the cases arise from the same transactions or events, a substantial
saving of judicial resources is likely to result from assigning the cases to the same Judge and
Magistrate Judge.” The mere involvement of similar legal issues or the same parties, however, does

not render civil cases “related.” General Order 12(G)(3). Unless both cases are presently pending
before the court, a presumption of non-relation exists. See General Order 12(G)(4).
Plaintiffs commenced this action on March 10, 2016, alleging that Defendants caused
perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) to contaminate their water supply. See No. 16-cv-292, Dkt. No. 1.
On behalf of a property damage class, Plaintiffs assert negligence, strict liability, private nuisance,
and trespass claims, and on behalf of a personal injury class, they assert negligence, strict liability,
private nuisance, and battery claims. Id. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive relief and damages. Id.
Plaintiffs Michele Baker, Angela Corbett, Daniel Schuttig, and Michelle O’Leary1 (the “Baker
plaintiffs”) commenced their action on February 24, 2016, alleging the same facts and asserting the
same property damage claims on behalf of two property damage subclasses. See No. 16-cv-220,
Dkt. No. 1. The Baker plaintiffs also seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. Id. Plaintiffs
state that all parties agree that the cases are related. Notice at 2.
After reviewing the submissions in the two cases, the Court finds that the cases are related as
defined under General Order 12(G)(2). Not only are the named Defendants the same in each case,
but the cases both arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact. The majority of the
claims between the two cases overlap, and the likely class members in the two suits are almost
certain to overlap as well. There appears to be no inherent conflict between the named Plaintiffs in
either action. Given the judicial resources likely to be conserved by consolidating the two actions,
all of the relevant factors favor deeming these nearly identical cases related.
Accordingly, it is hereby:

1

On February 26, 2016, Baker, Corbett, and Schuttig filed an amended complaint as of right
that removed O’Leary as a plaintiff. No. 16-cv-220, Dkt. No. 6.
2

ORDERED, that these two actions are considered RELATED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the above actions shall each be assigned before U.S. District Judge
Lawrence E. Kahn and U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart; and it is further
ORDERED, that this Order be docketed in each of the above cases and the Clerk of the
Court provide a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

March 18, 2016
Albany, New York

3