SELLERS et al v. FOUR-COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. et al
Filing
105
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 04/20/2015; RECOMMENDS that the United States' motion to consolidate (Docket Entry 81 ) be GRANTED. The undersigned RECOMMENDS that the cases be consolidated for discovery and trial. Associated Cases: 1:14-cv-00422-CCE-JLW, 1:14-cv-01032-CCE-JLW. (Garland, Leah)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
KHRISTEN SELLERS, et al.,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
V.
)
SOUTHE,ASTERN COMMUNITY
AND F'AMILY SERVICES, INC.,
JOHN ìØESLEY, and ERIC PENDER,
1,:1,4CY422
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
UNITED STATES OF' AME,RICA,
Plaintiff,
V
JOHN ìøE,SLEY, ERIC PENDER, and
S OUTHE,\STE,RN C OMMUNITY
AND FAMILY SERVICE,S, INC.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1,:1,4CY1,032
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the United States'Motion to Consolidate Related
Cases and Stay Discovery
in Seller¡
u. Soatheastem Communitl and
Famiþ Services. (Docket Entty
81.¡r The motion has been fully bdefed and the matter is ripe for disposition. Fot
the
reasons that follo% the undersigned recommends that the motion be gtanted.
1
All docket citations refer to the docket for
otherwise noted.
Sellers u. Se.
Cmfl. dz trarniþ
Serus., Inc.,1.:1.4CY422, unless
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs I(hristen Sellers, Alfreda Crowder, and Latoya Hasty ("Private Plaintiffs")
filed the complaint in this action against Southeastern Community and Family Services, Inc.,
John \X/esley, and Eric Pendet on Septembet 1,0, 201,2 in North Carohna state court.
(Compl. at 1, Docket Entry
4.) The action was removed ftom state court to this Coutt on
May 22,201.4. (Jaa Docket Entry 1.) Ptivate Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, fìled on
October 21., 2014, includes twelve plaintiffs, and alleges violations
Housing Act ("FHA") in addition to state law causes
On Decembet 10,
201,4,
of the federal Fait
of ac:!on3 (Compl., Docket Entty 62.)
the United States fìled sult against the same Defendants, alleging
violations of the FHA arising ftom the sâme or similar conduct by Defendants.
United State: u. íYeiley 1,:1,4CY1032,
(Jae
Compl.,
Docket Entry 1 (À{.D.N.C.).)
The United States now moves to consolidate the two cases fot discovery and trial.
(lvlot. to Consolidate, Docket Entry 81.) Additionally, the United States requests a stay in
discovery to allow all parties to confer about a new discovery schedule. (Gov't's Mem. at 2,
Docket Entry 82.) Pnvate Plaintiffs join the United States'motion to consolidate. pocket
Entry 83.) Defendants do not oppose consolidation for discovery and do not object to
stay
of discovery. (Defs.' Mem. at 2, Docket Entry 93.)
Defendants
do
a
oppose
consolidation of the cases for ttial. (Id.)
II.
DISCUSSION
Defendants make thtee atguments
cases
in opposition to the motion to
consolidate the
for ttial. Fitst, Defendants atgue thata consolidated trial will ptejudice them because it
2
Pdvate Plaintiffs have since filed a Fourth Âmended Complaint (Docket E.rt y 99), which includes
fifteen plaintiffs and alleges violations of the FHA in addition to state law claims.
2
will require an unwarranted aggregation of evidence. (d. at 3-6.) Next, they argue that
consolidation
will provide Private Plaintiffs with unwaranted ctedibility
because
of
the
Government's involvement. (Id. at 6-9.) Finally, Defendants argue that consolidation could
tesult in increased attorney's fees paid to Private Plaintiffs should Ptivate Plaintiffs ptevail.
(Id. at 9-10.) Each of these arguments is unpersuasive.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Ptoce dure 42,
a
cofiunon question of fact ot law, the coutt m y
Civ. P. 42(a). Once the motion
to
"[i]f actions before the court involve
.. . consolidate
the actions . . .
."
Fed. R.
consolidate "meet[s] the threshold requitement of
involving 'a common question of law or fact'1,]. . . whethet to grant the motion becomes an
issue
of judicial discretion."
Pari¡eaa u. Anod1ne Healthcare
Mgnt.,1zr., No. Civ. A. 3:04-CV-
630,2006 WL 325379, at*'1. CX/.D.N.C. Feb. 9,2006) (citing Arwold u. Eastem
Air
Unes,681.
F.2d1.86,1,93 (4thCk. 1,982)). The court has broad discretion to consolidate cases under
Rule 42(a) .
A/S
Ladwig Mowincþ.le¡ Rederi u. Tidewater Con¡t. Co., 559 F.2d 928, 933 (4th Cu.
1,977).
exercising its discretion in such rcgard, the coutt should
we€h the dsk of prejudice and possible confusion versus the
possibility of inconsistent adjudication of common factual and
legal issues, the butden on the parties, witnesses, and iudicial
resources by multiple lawsuits, the length of time tequited to try
multiple suits versus a single suit, and the relative expense
tequired for multiple suits versus a single suit.
In
In
re Cree, Inc.,
Sec.
Litig.,219 F'.R.D.369,371 (À4.D.N.C. 2003) (citing Amold,681, F.2d at
1,93).
Here, the moving parties have met the thteshold requirement
of Rule 42.
Private
Plaintiffs' case and the United States' case atise out of the same alleged events, namely
J
"sexual harassment, sexual assault, and extottion
for
Plaintiffs were seeking to obtain low-income housing
acts of retaliation and intimidation . . .
at 4-5, United
States
."
sexual acts
benefits
by Defendants while
as well as Defendants'
Compl. at2, Docket Etrtty 623;
(Jøe
accord
Compl.
u. l%esley 1:14CN1,032, Docket E.rtty 1 (À4.D.N.C.).) Defendants
concede that the cases "involve allegations
Pender." (Defs.' Mem.
^t
of similar conduct by Defendants ìTesley and
4.) Further, both Private Plaintiffs
and the United States allege
vioiations of the fedetal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. S 3601, et. seq. (Jee Compl. at
18,
Docket Entry 62; Compl. at 7, Unired State: u. Il/esley 1,:1,4CY7032, Docket Entry
1
04.D.N.C.).) Resolving these cases will turn on common issues of facts and law, thetefote
the moving parties have met the thteshold requirement of Rule 42.
Defendants argue that consolidation
because
of an ":unw^ft^flted
aggregation
of the cases for trial will lead to
of evidence." (Defs.' Mem.
^t
3.)
ptejudice
Defendants
specifically take issue with the possibility that the "numbet of 'aggneved petsons' in the DOJ
case
is significantly
greaLtet
than the number
Defendants could be "unfairly prejudiced
of piaintiffs in the Sellers case," and that
by a single jury hearing evidence relating to
multiple untelated allegations and losing its ability to fafuly apportion any liability." (Id. at 5.)
These arguments are unpersuasive. The fact that there
^Íe ^
latge number of
"aggtieved persons" alleging violations of their civil rights does not present a risk of undue
prejudice
to Defendants. The
Sellers
action alrcady has twelve plaintiffs, having been
3 Plaintiffs'Fourth Amended Complaint alleges the same. (Jae Fouth Am. Compl. at2, Docket
Entry 99.)
4
amended three times to add addit-ional paties.a (See Compl., Docket Entty
62.) -,\s Private
Plaintiffs cortectly point out, the existence of numerous witnesses to Defendants' alleged
actions is not grounds for objection. (Ptivate Pls.' Reply at 4, Docket Entry 95.) Even
cases were
witnesses
if
the
not consoüdated, Ptivate Plaintiffs would ìikely be able to call the Government's
to testi$r in theit action. SeeFed. R. Evid. 415 (allowing a court,in a civil
case
involving sexual assault, to admit evidence of "any othet sexual assault"). Additionally, at
trtal, a jury will be tesponsible for headng evidence telating to multiple allegations and be
required to apportion liability amongst Private Plaintiffs. \)Øhile the United States may bring
its action on behalf of a larger class than Ptivate Plaintiffs, thete is no undue prejudice
resulting from additional witnesses that would, on balance, outweigh the efficiencies gained
ftom holding a single
tial.
Therefote, this argument fails.
Next, Defendants argue that consolidation will ptovide Private Plaintiffs with
arttftcially inflated ctedibility because of the Government's involvement. (Defs.' Mem. at 6.)
Defendants cite
no authodty in support of their argument. Consolidation
between
government and pdvate actions is not an infrequent occurrence.5 Any tisk to Defendants
from the Government's involvement is miniscule when weighted against the butden on the
parties, witnesses, and the Court ftom holding sepatate
trials. Therefore, this argument
is
unpetsuasive.
o
The same actions are present in the Fourth Amended Complaint, which adds three additional
plaintiffs. (Jea Docket Entry 99.)
5
See, e.g.,Holland a.N.J.Dept. of Corr., Civ.,A.. Nos. 93-1683,94-2391, and94-3087,7994 \øL 507801,
at x7 P.NJ. Sept. 74, 1994); ATlanric Søns I-,ega/ Foand., Inc. u. Koch Refning C0,,681, F. Supp. 609, 615
@. Minn. 1988); Sierra Club a. Coco-Cola Corþ.,673 F. Supp. 1555, 1556 (À4.D. Fla. 1987).
5
Finally, Defendants argue that consol-idation could lead to incteased attotney's fees
fot Private Plaintiffs should Private Plaintiffs ptevail. (Defs.' Mem.
Defendants, "[c]onsolidation
of the trials of
significandy longer pre-trial and
sepatately," resulting
in
tral
^t
9-1,0.) Accotding to
these two matters likely
proceedings than
will result in
if the two matters were tried
increased damages should Ptivate Plaintiffs
win.
(Id. at
9.)
This
assertion is putely speculative, both as to the imposition of attotney's fees, which ate gtanted
at the coutt's disctetion
(:ee
42 U.S.C. $ 3613(c)(2)), and as to the outcome of the
cases.
Such speculative prejudice does not outweigh any efficiency gained ftom consolidating the
tials. Futthet, as Ptivate Plaintiffs dghtly point out, it is equally likely that pteparing Pdvate
Plaintiffs' clients for a single trial, f^thü than two trials
States
(as
they may be called by the United
if the cases âre not consolidated) would result in lower attotney's
fees. Therefore this
atgument fails.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reâsons stated above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the United
Stares' motion
to
consolidate (Docket Entry 81) be
RECOMMENDS that the
cases be consolidated
GRANTED. The undersigned
for discovery and trial.6
w
stef
States Magistrate Judge
,{.pdl
,201.5
Durham, North Carolina
6 To the extent the United States requests that discovery in the Sellers case be stayed, the Coutt notes
that the discovery deadline has been extended to ninety days after the resolution of the pending
motion.
(Jae
Order, Docket Entry 104.)
6
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?