Canady v. Strong Memorial Hospital et al
DECISION & ORDER The University's motions for consolidation (13 CV 6290, Docket ## 31 , 35 ; 14 CV 6264, Docket # 20) are hereby granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to consolidate the matters and designate 13-CV-6290 as the lead case. All further filings shall be made under case number 13-CV-6290. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 6/9/2015. Copy of Decision & Order mailed to Mark Canady on 6/9/2015. (KAH) -CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DECISION & ORDER
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER and
1199 SEIU HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST,
Currently pending before the Court are motions filed by the defendant University
of Rochester (the “University”), which are joined by the defendant 1199 SEIU United Healthcare
Workers East (the “Union”), to consolidate the above-captioned cases. (13-CV-6290, Docket
## 31, 35; 14-CV-6264, Docket # 20).1 Plaintiff Mark Canady (“Canady”), who represents
himself in both cases, has not opposed the motions. Considering the absence of any opposition
and the advantages of consolidation, the University’s motions are granted.
On June 7, 2013, Canady filed a Complaint against the University and the Union
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging race discrimination. (13-CV-6290 at
# 1). Canady’s Complaint claims that the University discriminated against him on the basis of
his race when it suspended him from his employment with the University and that the Union did
not properly represent him on account of his race in connection with the disciplinary suspension.
(Id.). On May 19, 2014, Canady filed a second Title VII race discrimination complaint against
both defendants. (14-CV-6264 at # 1). On July 14, 2014, Canady filed an Amended Complaint
The motions also seek to change the caption of the cases to correct the names of the defendants. (Id.).
That application is granted.
in that action. (14-CV-6264 at # 4). That Amended Complaint arises out of Canady’s
termination from employment with the University. (Id.). Defendants have filed Answers in both
cases (13-CV-6290 at ## 10, 11; 14-CV-6264 at ## 7, 9), and this Court has set the same
deadlines in both cases for filing motions to amend, completing fact discovery and filing
dispositive motions (13-CV-6290 at # 26; 14-CV-6264 at # 15).
The University seeks to consolidate both cases for discovery and trial purposes on
the grounds that the actions involve identical parties, similar claims of race discrimination under
Title VII, and overlapping factual bases. (13-CV-6290 at # 31-2 at 4-6; 14-CV-6264 at # 20-2 at
4-6). Among other things, the University notes that Canady’s suspension was purportedly
resolved through an agreement between the University and the Union (representing Canady),
which Canady alleges in his Complaint in the subsequent case that the University improperly
relied upon in terminating his employment. (13-CV-6290 at # 31-1 at ¶¶ 11-12; 14-CV-6264 at
# 20-1, ¶¶ 11-12). The University contends that discovery in both cases “will involve reviewing
many of the same documents and interviewing and/or deposing many of the same individuals”
and that motions if appropriate in one case will likely be appropriate in the other. (13-CV-6290
at # 31-1 at ¶¶ 13-14; 14-CV-6264 at # 20-1, ¶¶ 13-14)
I agree that consolidation of both cases is justified under Rule 42(a)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Both cases involve common questions of law and fact –
principally, whether the University and/or the Union illegally discriminated against Canady on
the basis of his race in connection with the imposition of disciplinary employment action against
him. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). Considering the likely substantial factual overlap between the
cases and the minimal risk of confusion or prejudice, this Court finds that consolidation will
conserve the parties’ resources, minimize burden to witnesses and further judicial economy. See,
e.g., Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 (2d Cir.) (“[i]n the exercise of discretion,
courts have taken the view that considerations of judicial economy favor consolidation,
[although] the discretion to consolidate is not unfettered”) (internal citations omitted), cert.
denied, 498 U.S. 920 (1990); Richardson v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 1998 WL 329387, *1
(W.D.N.Y. 1998) (“[t]he advantages of consolidation include cost and time savings for the
parties, a more efficient use of judicial resources, diminished inconvenience for the witnesses
and a reduced or eliminated risk of inconsistent adjudications of common questions of fact and
law”). Canady, who has not opposed the pending motion, evidently does not disagree with the
assessment of the benefits of consolidation in these cases.
Accordingly, the University’s motions for consolidation (13-CV-6290, Docket
## 31, 35; 14-CV-6264, Docket # 20) are hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is
directed to consolidate the matters and designate 13-CV-6290 as the lead case. All further filings
shall be made under case number 13-CV-6290.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Marian W. Payson
MARIAN W. PAYSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
June 9, 2015
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?