Fanning v. Trotter Site Preparation, LLC

Filing 20

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES consolidating case 1:09-2371-JFA with case 1:09-3013-JFA. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 01/14/10. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA A IK E N DIVISION T r o tte r Site Preparation, LLC, ) ) P l a in tif f , ) ) vs. ) ) L o c a l 470, International Union of ) O p e ra tin g Engineers, an unincorporated ) a s s o c ia tio n , 422 Chalk Bed Road, ) C e n tra l Pension Fund of the Operating ) E n g in e e rs ; Thomas Joseph Farrer; the ) E sta te of Larry Trotter; Donald Rish; ) a n d Danny Herlong, ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) M ic h a el R. Fanning, as Chief Executive ) O f f ic e r of the Central Pension Fund of ) th e International Union of Operating ) E n g in e e r s and Participating Employers, ) ) P l a in tif f , ) ) vs. ) ) T ro tte r Site Preparation, LLC, ) ) D e f e n d a n t. ) ) C /A No.: 1:09-2371-JFA

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

C/A No.: 1:09-3013-JFA

T h is matter comes before the court on Trotter Site Preparation, LLC's ("Trotter") m o tio n [dkt. # 26] to consolidate Trotter Site Preparation, LLC v. Local 470 et al., :092 3 7 1 -J F A and Fanning v. Trotter Site Preparation, LLC, 1:09-3012-JFA. Trotter has s u b m itte d a brief in support of its motion, while the defendants have not responded or

o th e rw is e opposed Trotter's motion. The parties in both cases conferred with the court on J a n u a ry 14, 2010 and no party in either case indicated opposition to consolidation. For the re a so n s below, the court grants Trotter's motion to consolidate. I. Factual Background T ro tte r is a South Carolina corporation that employed six to ten workers at the D e p a rtm e n t of Energy's Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Trotter entered into a c o lle c tiv e bargaining agreement (the "Agreement") with, among others, the International U n io n of Operating Engineers Local No. 470 (the "Local"), which set forth the terms under w h ic h it would employ workers at the site. The Central Pension Fund (the "Fund") of the In te rn a tio n a l Union of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers (the "Union") c la im s that it is entitled to contributions pursuant to that agreement. Trotter asserts that the A g re e m e n t compels no such payments, and that any payments that otherwise would have f lo w e d to the Fund were paid as direct compensation to the individual employees, and that th is was done with full knowledge of the Local. T h e Fund filed suit against Trotter in the United States District Court for the District o f Columbia on June 18, 2009 asserting violation of the Agreement and specific provisions o f the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§1132(a)(3), (g ), 1145 (2006). The Fund seeks $34,669.00 in unpaid contributions, plus liquidated

d a m a g e s , interest, costs, audit and attorneys fees, as well as a payroll audit. That suit was tra n sf e rre d to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina by order

2

d a te d November 9, 2009. T ro tte r filed suit against the Fund, the Local, and several individuals in the United S ta te s District Court for the District of South Carolina on September 8, 2009, seeking d e c l a ra to r y, injunctive, and other equitable relief against the Local; indemnification against th e Local and the individual defendants; and damages for unfair trade practices and c o n sp ira c y against the Local and the Fund. II. D is c u ss io n T ro tter seeks to consolidate cases pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil P ro c e d u re . Rule 42(a) provides that: If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court m a y: (1) jo i n for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2 ) c o n so lid a te the actions; or (3 ) is s u e any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. F e d . R. Civ. P. 42(a). District courts enjoy broad discretion under Rule 42(a) to consolidate c a se s pending in the same district, though must exercise such discretion within certain g u id e lin e s. The Fourth Circuit has indicated that the district court must critically assess (1) th e specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion as against the risk of inconsistent a d ju d ic a tio n s of common factual and legal issues; (2) the burden on parties, witnesses and a v a ilab le judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits; (3) the length of time required to c o n c lu d e multiple suits as against a single one; and (4) the relative expense to all concerned o f the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives. Arnold v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186,

3

1 9 3 (4th Cir. 1982). Both cases concerns differences in interpreting the same Agreement. The dispute over th e contract's meaning lies at the heart of both cases, and supplies the prerequisite common lega l issue necessary to consolidate the cases. In evaluating the Arnold factors, the court f in d s consolidation appropriate as a single adjudication (1) prevents any risk of inconsistent c o n tra c t interpretation; (2) mitigates expenses related to duplication of effort and the travel o f the approximately 17 witnesses; (3) and conserves time and judicial resources. The court f in d s that consolidation presents little chance of jury confusion as the interpretation of the c o n tra c t will be out of any jurors hands. Moreover, consolidation does not appear to p re ju d ic e any of the parties, as the Fund is already a defendant in Trotter v. Local 470 et al., a n d the heart of the separate cases goes to the same disputed issue. III. C o n c lu s io n B a se d on the foregoing, the court grants Trotter's motion [dkt. # 26] to consolidate F an n in g v. Trotter Site Preparation, LLC., 1:09-3013-JFA and Trotter Site Preparation, LLC v . Local 470 et al., 1:09-2371-JFA. A scheduling order for the consolidated case will issue o n c e all parties have appeared. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jan u ary 14, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

4