Jones et al v. Allen, et al
Filing
199
OPINION AND ORDER granting 180 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 9/22/2014. (agm1)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CRAIG S. JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
:
:
Case No. 2:11-cv-380
v.
:
JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON
KERRY A. ALLEN, PLAN
ADMINISTRATOR, et al.,
:
Magistrate Judge Kemp
:
Defendants.
_________________________________________________________________
CRAIG S. JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
:
:
Case No. 2:14-cv-242
v.
:
JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON
ORIX USA CORPORATION,
:
Magistrate Judge Kemp
Defendant.
:
OPINION AND ORDER
This ERISA case is before the Court to resolve Defendants’
Motion to Consolidate Case No. 2:14-CV-242 with Related Case No.
2:11-CV-380 (Case No. 11-cv-380, Doc. 180; Case No. 14-cv-242, Doc.
16).
This motion has been fully briefed.
For the reasons that
follow, the Court will grant the Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are former employees of one of the mortgage and
investment banking entities collectively referred to as Red
Capital.
On May 3, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against
the four entities that are collectively referred to as Red
Capital, the company that acquired Red Capital on December 31,
2008 (the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (“PNC”)), certain
severance benefits plans, and the plan administrator for those
plans alleging that Defendants retaliated against them for
exercising certain rights pursuant to ERISA and wrongfully denied
their ERISA benefits.
(Case No. 11-cv-380, Doc. 2).
Plaintiffs
claimed benefits in connection with two changes in ownership of
Red Capital.
The first was the purchase of Red Capital’s sole
owner, National City, by PNC on December 31, 2008.
As to the
second, Plaintiffs alleged that an investor group led by ORIX USA
Corp. acquired Red Capital on May 8, 2010.
(Doc. #2 at ¶30).
Plaintiffs did not include ORIX USA Corp. (“ORIX”) as a defendant
in the original complaint.
On December 16, 2013, Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend
the Complaint to add certain claims and factual allegations, and
to add ORIX USA Corporation (“ORIX”) as an additional defendant
for purposes of Plaintiffs’ existing retaliation claim.
Defendants opposed this motion.
On March 10, 2014, while their
motion for leave to amend was pending, Plaintiffs filed Case No.
14-cv-242 against ORIX USA Corporation bringing a claim for
retaliation based on the same facts as the retaliation claim in
the original action.
The allegations in that complaint state
that Plaintiffs filed the new action against ORIX in order to
preserve their claim because the Court had not yet ruled on their
motion to amend.
On March 21, 2014, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the motion to amend, in particular, granting
the motion to amend to add ORIX as a defendant in relation to
Plaintiffs’ retaliation claim.
complaint.
Plaintiffs filed the amended
Then, after Case No. 14-cv-242 was deemed a related
action and transferred to Judge Watson’s docket, Plaintiffs
withdrew the amended complaint in Case No. 11-cv-380 and decided
to proceed against ORIX based on the complaint filed in Case No.
14-cv-242.
Now Defendants have moved to consolidate the two civil
actions.
2
II. ANALYSIS
Consolidation of cases is provided for in Rule 42(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states, in pertinent
part, that the Court may order consolidation of actions involving
“a common question of law or fact . . . .”
42(a).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
The purpose of consolidation is to “administer the
court's business ‘with expedition and economy while providing
justice to the parties.’”
Advey v. Celotex, Corp., 962 F.2d
1177, 1180 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting 9 Wright & Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure, §2381 (1971)).
Courts should
thoughtfully consider “[w]hether 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.”
Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th
Cir. 1993) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
“[C]onsolidation does not merge the suits into a single
action, change the rights of the parties, or make parties in one
suit parties in the other.”
Twaddle v. Diem, 200 F. App'x 435,
438 n.4 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289
U.S. 479, 496–97 (1933) (interpreting predecessor of Rule
42(a))).
“[I]t is the district court's responsibility to ensure
that parties are not prejudiced by consolidation.”
Lewis v. ACB
Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 412-13 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing
Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2385 (2d ed.1994)).
The parties do not dispute that the actions before the court
involve numerous common questions of law and fact.
The parties
have not raised any risks of confusion, nor is the Court aware of
3
any.
Plaintiffs have raised the issue of prejudice with respect
to discovery rights.
However, the case law makes it clear that
consolidation does not change the rights of the parties, and the
Court can address discovery issues as they arise.
All of the
other factors are either neutral or weigh in favor of
consolidation.
It appears that all parties will benefit from the
consolidation of the two actions, and judicial economy favors
consolidation.
Accordingly, it is appropriate here to
consolidate the actions.
III.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Consolidate is
granted.
The Court ORDERS the consolidation of the above-
captioned cases under Case No. 2:11-cv-380, and DIRECTS the
parties to file all future matters in Case No. 2:11-cv-380.
The
Clerk of Courts is directed to file a copy of this order in both
Case Nos. 2:11-cv-380 and 2:14-cv-242.
IV.
PROCDURE ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is
filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for
reconsideration by a District Judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),
Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern Division Order No. 14–01,
pt. IV(C)(3)(a).
The motion must specifically designate the
order or part in question and the basis for any objection.
Responses to objections are due fourteen days after objections
are filed and replies by the objecting party are due seven days
thereafter.
The District Judge, upon consideration of the
motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to be
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
This order is in full force and effect even if a motion for
reconsideration has been filed unless it is stayed by either the
Magistrate Judge or District Judge. S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.3.
/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge
5
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?