Borden v. Antonelli College et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE (Case No. 1:16cv519, Doc. 21 ; Case No. 1:16cv520, Doc. 19). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 10/4/2016. (mr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
ANNIE BORDEN, Individually and
on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:16-cv-519

vs.
Judge Timothy S. Black
ANTONELLI COLLEGE, et al.,
Defendants
_______________________________________________________________________
TENESHA ADAMS, Individually and
on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:16-cv-520

vs.
Judge Timothy S. Black
ANTONELLI COLLEGE, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE
(Case No. 1:16cv519, Doc. 21; Case No. 1:16cv520, Doc. 19)
This civil action is before the Court on motions to consolidate of Plaintiff Borden
(Case No. 1:16cv519, Doc. 21) and Plaintiff Adams (Case No. 1:16cv520, Doc. 19), and
the parties’ responsive memoranda (Case No. 1:16cv519: Docs. 22, 23; Case No.
1:16cv520: Docs. 21, 24).
I.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

Plaintiffs Annie Borden and Tenesha Adams move this Court for an order
consolidating the above-captioned actions for all purposes. Plaintiffs argue that
consolidation is appropriate because the two actions involve common questions of law

and fact, will promote judicial economy, and will avoid inconsistent adjudication, as well
as unnecessary costs and delay.
The two cases before the Court allege class action claims. The lead plaintiff in
each case is or was a student of the Practical Nursing Program (“PNP”) at Antonelli
College, who allegedly suffered harm as a result of the false and deceptive advertising by
Antonelli. Each plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former students who
enrolled in the PNP at Antonelli College between 2013 and the present. Both cases
clearly involve common questions of law and fact.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Plaintiffs have moved for consolidation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(a). Rule 42(a) provides: “If 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.” Rule 42(a) “affords the district court discretion concerning
the purposes and scope of consolidation. Advey v. Celotex Corp., 962 F.2d 1177, 1180
(6th Cir. 1992). “The underlying objective is to administer the court’s business ‘with
expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties.’” Id. (quoting 9 Wright &
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2381 (1971)). Consolidation is permitted as a
matter of convenience and economy in administration, but it does not merge the suits into
a single cause, change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit
parties in another. Lewis v. ACB Bus. Services, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 412 (6th Cir. 1998).

2

“It is not a prerequisite to consolidation that there be a complete identity of
legal and factual issues posed in the cases which are the subject of the request.” Safety
Today, Inc. v. Roy, Nos. 2:12-cv-510, 2:12-cv-929, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43659, at *1
(S.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2013). As long as there are some common questions of either law or
fact, the court has the flexibility under Rule 42(a) to allow cases to proceed jointly with
respect to such matters in which joint proceedings would not be unduly prejudicial and
would be an effective utilization of judicial resources. Id. Rule 42(a) does not require
that cases be consolidated for all purposes; rather, the rule also contemplates
consolidation for purposes of particular segments of the litigation. Magnavox Co. v. APF
Electronics, Inc., 496 F.Supp. 29, 32 (N.D. Ill. 1980).
In deciding whether cases should be consolidated, this 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.
Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985).
III.

ANALYSIS

Defendants do not oppose consolidating the cases for purposes of initial discovery
as outlined in the Court’s April 16, 2016 Notation Order in the Adams case. However,
Defendants argue that because discovery in the Adams case has been limited to written
discovery tied to the individual plaintiff until the December 15, 2016 status conference,

3

any order of consolidation would be premature at this time. 1 Furthermore, following
individual discovery of the named plaintiffs in Adams, Defendants intend to file motions
for summary judgment. Accordingly, Defendants believe that consolidation should be
evaluated once the Court has ruled on the summary judgment motions. The Court agrees.
The Court has designated these two cases as “related” pursuant to S.D. Ohio Civ.
R. 3.1(b). Accordingly, there is no risk of inconsistent adjudication. Moreover, while
these cases clearly involve common questions of law and fact, given the current
procedural posture, the Court finds that it will actually promote judicial economy to keep
the cases separate at this stage. At this point in the litigation, counsel is not conducting
class discovery. To the extent that the limited written discovery in Adams and Borden is
duplicative, defense counsel has already agreed to “consolide” the cases for purposes of
initial discovery. While the Court has yet to conduct the Preliminary Pretrial Conference
in Borden (scheduled for October 28, 2016), given defense counsel’s acquiescence in
consolidating initial discovery, the Court anticipates that a calendar identical to Adams
will be entered in Borden.
The Court will revisit the issue of consolidation after the December 15, 2016
status conference, upon request.

1

The Court limited discovery until a ruling from the Ohio Board of Nursing is issued. The ruling
may significantly impact these cases. The parties anticipate a ruling before the December 15,
2016 status conference.
4

IV.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motions to consolidate (Case No.
1:16cv519, Doc. 21; Case No. 1:16cv520; Doc. 19) are DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 10/4/16

s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

5