Geisel v. Dolgencorp, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying (18) Motion to Stay in case 5:10-cv-00052-MR-DLH; denying (18) Motion to Stay in case 1:10-cv-00081-MR-DLH; denying (18) Motion to Stay in case 5:10-cv-00053-MR-DLH; denying (18) Motion to Stay in case 5:10-cv-00 054-MR-DLH; denying (18) Motion to Stay in case 1:10-cv-00082-MR-DLH; denying (18) Motion to Stay in case 3:10-cv-00197-MR-DLH; denying (18) Motion to Stay in case 3:10-cv-00198-MR-DLH; denying (18) Motion to Stay in case 5:10-cv-00055-MR-DLH; denyin g (18) Motion to Stay in case 1:10-cv-00083-MR-DLH; denying (18) Motion to Stay in case 1:10-cv-00084-MR-DLH; denying (18) Motion to Stay in case 1:10-cv-00085-MR-DLH; denying (18) Motion to Stay in case 5:10-cv-00056-MR-DLH. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 06/28/2010. (thh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA A S H E V IL L E DIVISION 1 :1 0 cv 8 1 [co n so lid a tin g for pretrial purposes 1:10cv81, 1:10cv82, 1:10cv83, 1 :1 0 cv 8 4 , 1:10cv85, 3:10cv197, 3:10cv198, 5:10cv52, 5:10cv52, 5 :1 0 cv 5 3 , 5:10cv54, 5:10cv55, 5:10cv56]
ANN GEISEL, Plaintiff, Vs. DOLGENCORP, INC., Defendant. _______________________________ MELISSA MORGAN, Plaintiff, Vs. DOLGENCORP, INC., Defendant. _______________________________ TERESA STILLS, Plaintiff, Vs. DOLGENCORP, INC., Defendant. _______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER

DELLA MODE, -1-

)

Plaintiff, Vs. DOLGENCORP, INC., Defendant. _______________________________ SHIRLEY LEDFORD, Plaintiff, Vs. DOLGENCORP, INC., Defendant. _______________________________ VICKEY WILSON, Plaintiff, Vs. DOLGENCORP, INC., Defendant. _______________________________ JEAN MAPLES, Plaintiff, Vs. DOLGENCORP, INC., Defendant. _______________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

BRIAN JONES,

) ) -2-

Plaintiff, Vs. DOLGENCORP, INC., Defendant. _______________________________ CHRISTINE ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, Vs. DOLGENCORP, INC., Defendant. _______________________________ SONYA GREENE, Plaintiff, Vs. DOLGENCORP, INC., Defendant. _______________________________ CHRIS THOMPSON, Plaintiff, Vs. DOLGENCORP, INC., Defendant. _______________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

LEE NORWOOD, Plaintiff, -3-

) ) ) )

Vs. DOLGENCORP, INC., Defendant. _______________________________ and, MARY MAYHEW, Plaintiff, Vs. DOLGENCORP, INC., Defendant. _______________________________

) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

T H IS MATTER is before the court on plaintiffs' Motion[s] to Stay Discovery an d Other Pretrial motions Pending Ruling From Multi-District Litigation Panel. This m o tio n has been fully briefed by the respective parties. A hearing was conducted on s u c h motion[s] on June 22, 2010. Prior to the hearing, the court gave the parties n o tice that the following issues would also be addressed at such hearing: (1 ) co n sid eratio n of administrative consolidation of these 13 cases pending tr ia l; (2 ) (3 ) (4 ) (5 ) (6) en try of a Pretrial Order either in each case or in a consolidated action; d iscu ssio n of the requirements of mediation; d iscu ssio n of what discovery remains to be taken; settin g a dispositive motions deadline; and s ettin g a firm trial date.
-4-

A Pretrial Order follows and reflects matters discussed concerning discovery and trial in this matter. T h e court closely considered the motions seeking to stay these matters pending a decision of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on plaintiffs' motion to tr an s f e r these matters back to the Northern District of Alabama. While this court r o u tin e ly stays cases pending a transfer determination by the JPML, these cases p r e se n t an atypical situation for this court. Although the transfer of hundreds of cases f ro m the North District of Alabama back to the districts where the respective plaintiffs la st worked for defendant will cause all parties, and the transferee courts, a great deal o f work, it is clear from the pleadings that such transfer was undertaken by the tran sfero r court not in error, but with the intent that case specific discovery be a c c o m p lish ed and that the matters be resolved in venues where the alleged labor v io latio n s supposedly transpired. Thus, it appears that there is substantive work to b e accomplished in these cases and that such work can be done in this district. H a v in g first determined that there is work to be accomplished and that the cases w e re not transferred to this district in error, the next factor the court has considered is the likelihood that the JPML will grant plaintiffs the relief they seek. While transfer b ack to the Northern District of Alabama is initially appealing, defendant has made a convincing argument that such would likely be a useless act inasmuch as discovery as to common issues has been exhausted in that forum and all that remains is merits

-5-

r es o lu tio n as to each plaintiff in their respective home districts. Predicting what an o th er court will do is not an exact science; however, the undersigned believes it to b e more probable than not that plaintiffs' request will be denied by the JPML. While th e undersigned has recently seen another district erroneously transfer a large number o f related cases to various districts, which caused numerous procedural problems, it is clear in this case that this transfer was both well informed and purposeful. Indeed, co u n sel for defendant disclosed during the hearing what appears to be a very workable p lan for handling summary judgment motions efficiently. F in ally, the undersigned has considered the impact of denying the stay and w h eth er the work accomplished in this district would be for naught in the event the J P M L transfers these matters back to the North District of Alabama. The pretrial w o rk to be accomplished in this district consists of depositions of plaintiffs, and p e r h a p s some non-party co-workers, and limited written discovery. Such discovery w o u ld , necessarily, need to be accomplished in this district regardless of the forum th at ultimately handles the remainder of pretrial issues. Further, it appears that these actio n s must be tried in this district as it is likely that the Northern District of Alabama is not a proper venue for trial. Finally, the rationale contained in defendant's substantive response to the M o tio n to Stay is compelling. While all the briefs filed by all parties are outstanding, th e court simply cannot see the logic, and does not believe the JPML will see, in

-6-

r e tu rn in g these matters to the Northern District of Alabama, simply to be promptly retu rn ed to this court for final discovery. The undersigned will, respectfully, deny the s ta y . *** T h e court has next considered its own motion for consolidation of these 13 cases for pretrial proceedings. Up to this point, the parties have been filing 13 id en tical sets of pleadings in the 13 cases, while the court has been creating and en te rin g 13 different orders. This is a waste of the resources of the parties and the co u rt. While it appears clear that each plaintiff's work circumstances may well be d ifferen t and may require a separate trial, the undersigned will consolidate these m a tter for pretrial proceedings. Whether to try these matters together or during the sam e term will be left to the sound discretion of the district court.

ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion[s] to Stay Discovery a n d Other Pretrial motions Pending Ruling From Multi-District Litigation Panel are D E N IE D , and the above actions are CONSOLIDATED for further pretrial p ro ceed in g s as above captioned.

-7-

Signed: June 28, 2010

-8-