Parenteau v. 200 Ninth Restaurant LLC et al

Filing 25

OPINION & ORDER re: (19 in 1:14-cv-05099-PAE) MOTION to Consolidate Cases 1:14-cv-09081 . filed by 200 Ninth Restaurant LLC, 200 Chelsea Corp., (11 in 1:14-cv-09081-PAE) MOTION to Consolidate Cases 1:14-cv-05099 . file d by 200 Ninth Restaurant LLC, 200 Chelsea Corp. For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendants' motion for consolidation, for all pretrial purposes. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at 14 Civ. 5099, Dkt. 19; and 14 Civ. 9081, Dkt. 11. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 1/14/2015) (djc)

City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), and the New York State Human Rights Law
(“NYSHRL”). Because the Court has determined that these two cases involve significant
common questions, the Court grants defendants’ motion to consolidate these two cases, for all
pretrial purposes. Following the close of discovery and the resolution of any summary judgment
motions, the Court will determine, if necessary, whether consolidation of these actions for a
common trial is also merited (as appears likely).
I.

Factual and Procedural Background 1
On July 8, 2014, plaintiff Joseph Parenteau (“Parenteau”) filed a Complaint, alleging that

the defendants violated Title III of the ADA, the NYCHRL, and the NYSHRL based on, inter
alia, architectural barriers to access at The Meatball Shop, which is located at 200 Ninth Avenue
in Manhattan. 14 Civ. 5099, Dkt. 1 (“Parenteau Compl.”). Parenteau’s Complaint alleges that,
inter alia, (1) the front entrance violates these statutes because it lacks a ramp or wheelchair lift,
and the front doors specifically are not ADA-compliant; (2) the restaurant lacks an accessible
means of egress; (3) the restroom is not currently ADA-compliant; and (4) the bar is inaccessible
to a customer in a wheelchair. Id. ¶ 16. Parenteau alleges that The Meatball Shop failed to make
readily achievable accommodations. Id. ¶ 18. Parenteau seeks compensatory damages, a
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. ¶¶ 29, 31, 32.
On November 14, 2014, plaintiff Claudio Darezzo (“Darezzo”) filed a Complaint,
alleging that the same defendants violated Title III of the ADA, the NYCHRL, the NYSHRL,
and the New York State Civil Rights Law (“NYSCRL”), and also committed common-law
negligence, based on, inter alia, architectural barriers to access at The Meatball Shop. 14 Civ.

1

These background facts are derived from the two plaintiffs’ Complaints, 14 Civ. 5099, Dkt. 1
(“Parenteau Compl.”); 14 Civ. 9081, Dkt. 1 (“Darezzo Compl.”). The Court provides these facts
merely as background, and does not assume the truth of any allegation.
2

9081, Dkt. 1 (“Darezzo Compl.”). Darezzo’s Complaint alleges that, inter alia, (1) the front
entrance violates these statutes because it lacks a ramp or wheelchair lift, and the front doors
specifically are not ADA-compliant; (2) the restaurant lacks an accessible means of egress;
(3) the restroom is not currently ADA-compliant; and (4) the bar is inaccessible to a customer in
a wheelchair. Id. ¶ 22. Darezzo alleges that The Meatball Shop failed to make readily
achievable accommodations. Id. ¶ 32. Darezzo seeks compensatory damages, a declaratory
judgment, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, punitive damages, and a ruling that
defendants are guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for violating the NYSCRL. Id., pp. 13–15.
Defendants answered both Complaints, denying plaintiffs’ allegations and raising the
same 20 affirmative defenses in each Answer. See 14 Civ. 5099, Dkt. 11; 14 Civ. 9081, Dkt. 10.
On December 22, 2014, defendants moved to consolidate these two cases and submitted a
brief in support. 14 Civ. 5099, Dkt. 19–21; 14 Civ. 9081, Dkt. 11–13. On December 24, 2014,
the Court issued an Order directing plaintiffs to inform the Court whether they opposed
defendants’ motion. Darezzo does not oppose the motion, see 14 Civ. 9081, Dkt. 15; Parenteau,
by contrast, filed a brief in opposition to the consolidation motion, see 14 Civ. 5099, Dkt. 24
(“Parenteau Opp. Br.”).
II.

Legal Standard
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, “[i]f actions before the

court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or
all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to
avoid unnecessary cost or delay.”
This Rule “empowers a trial judge to consolidate actions for trial”—or for more limited
purposes, such as pretrial proceedings—“when there are common questions of law or fact,” and

3

where consolidation will avoid needless costs or delay. Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d
1281, 1284 (2d Cir. 1990). “The Rule should be prudently employed as a valuable and important
tool of judicial administration, invoked to expedite trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and
confusion. In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district
court should consider both equity and judicial economy.” Devlin v. Transp. Commc’ns Int’l
Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“Typically, considerations of judicial economy favor consolidation, but ‘the benefits of
efficiency can never be purchased at the cost of fairness.’” M & T Mortg. Corp. v. White, No. 04
Civ. 4775 (WFK) (VVP), 2012 WL 715896, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2012) (quoting Malcolm v.
Nat’l Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 350 (2d Cir. 1993)), report and recommendation adopted, No.
04 Civ. 4775 (WFK) (VVP), 2012 WL 954651 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2012). Before a Court orders
a consolidated trial, it must consider several factors and determine, inter alia, whether the gains
in efficiency and economy are outweighed by the “risks of prejudice and possible confusion.”
Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1284 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2
III.

Discussion
The Court holds that consolidation of these cases is clearly merited, at least for pretrial

purposes such as discovery and the resolution of dispositive pretrial motions. Both plaintiffs
have sued the same two defendants, concerning the same facility—The Meatball Shop—and

2

More specifically, when determining whether to hold a consolidated trial, the Court must
consider “whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion [are] overborne by the
risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties,
witnesses, and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the length of time
required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense to all
concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives. When considering consolidation, a court
should also note that the risks of prejudice and confusion may be reduced by the use of
cautionary instructions to the jury and verdict sheets outlining the claims of each plaintiff.”
Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1285 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
4

have brought parallel and highly similar claims under the ADA and parallel state and city laws:
to wit, that The Meatball Shop unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiffs based on the
facility’s inaccessibility to those individuals who use wheelchairs. Plaintiffs, in fact, make
certain identical claims of ADA violations in their Complaints, including that: (1) the front
entrance violates the anti-discrimination statutes because it lacks a ramp or wheelchair lift, and
because the front doors are not ADA-compliant; (2) the restaurant lacks an accessible means of
egress; (3) the restroom is not ADA-compliant; and (4) the bar is inaccessible to a customer
using a wheelchair. Given these similarities, it is perhaps unsurprising that Parenteau and
Darezzo seek largely the same remedies, including compensatory damages, a declaratory
judgment, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Parenteau’s and Darezzo’s claims also turn on entirely the same—or at a minimum,
virtually all the same—evidence. Most centrally, Parenteau and Darezzo will need to inspect the
same property and depose the same witnesses. Consolidation will “eliminate unnecessary
repetition,” reduce the costs for all parties, and avoid the possible risk of inconsistent rulings.
Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130. The Court therefore holds that these two cases obviously present a host
of common questions of law and fact, including whether The Meatball Shop and its landlord
violated the ADA, the NYCHRL, and the NYSHRL based on the derelictions alleged in both
Complaints.
Recognizing the obvious inefficiency of separate proceedings, Darezzo does not oppose
defendants’ motion for consolidation; Parenteau, however, the first plaintiff to bring suit, does.
Parenteau’s arguments include the following: (1) these two cases “are not entirely consistent
with one another,” because one alleges 18 ADA violations, whereas the other alleges 20 ADA
violations, Parenteau Opp. Br. ¶ 1; (2) these two cases involve different plaintiffs who are

5

unrelated to each other, id. at ¶ 3; (3) Darezzo asserts two causes of action not asserted by
Parenteau, namely a negligence claim and a NYSCRL claim, id. ¶¶ 5–6; (4) Darezzo seeks
punitive damages whereas Parenteau does not, id. ¶ 7; and (5) an out-of-circuit case found
consolidation unwarranted where the same plaintiff sued two different defendants alleging ADA
violations, id. at p. 3 (citing Rapport v. Lalji, Inc., No. 06 Civ. 61270 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2006)).
None of these arguments, considered individually or together, is remotely persuasive,
given that Rule 42(a) permits consolidation where the “actions before the court involve a
common question of law or fact.” That these two actions have a variety of common questions of
both law and fact is beyond serious dispute. Parenteau’s argument seems to imply, incorrectly,
that consolidation is merited only where the actions are literally identical. And Parenteau’s
attempted analogy to Rapport is unconvincing because that case involved the same plaintiff
suing different defendants. As Parenteau himself recognizes, that ADA case “did not involve the
same Subject Facility.” Parenteau Opp. Br. 3. And it is the facility’s accommodations (or lack
thereof) that form the crux of an ADA dispute.
The Court therefore rejects Parenteau’s arguments and consolidates these two cases, for
all pretrial purposes. The Court will subsequently determine, after discovery and any motions
for summary judgment, whether to hold a consolidated trial, if necessary.
In light of this holding, the Court directs counsel for plaintiffs Parenteau and Darezzo to
meet and confer within the next week, and draft a proposed revised Civil Case Management Plan
and Scheduling Order. Given the addition of a new plaintiff, the new deadline for (consolidated)
fact discovery shall be May 1, 2015. The plaintiffs shall then confer with the defendants
regarding the parties’ proposed revised Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. The
Court directs the parties (i.e., both plaintiffs and both defendants) to jointly submit their revised

6