Bautista v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER granting 16 Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 4:20-cv-03868-SAL-TER; granting 16 Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 4:20-cv-03869-SAL-TER; granting 16 Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 4:20-cv-03870-SAL-TER; g ranting 16 Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 4:20-cv-03871-SAL-TER; granting 16 Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 4:20-cv-03909-SAL-TER; granting 16 Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 4:20-cv-03910-SAL-TER; granting 16 Motion to Consolid ate Cases in case 4:20-cv-03911-SAL-TER; granting 16 Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 4:20-cv-03912-SAL-TER; granting 16 Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 4:20-cv-03926-SAL-TER; granting 16 Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 4:20-cv-03928 -SAL-TER; granting 16 Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 4:20-cv-03936-SAL-TER; granting 16 Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 4:20-cv-03935-SAL-TER Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 09/08/2021.Associated Cases: 4:20-cv-03868-SAL-TER et al.(dsto, )

4:20-cv-03868-SAL-TER

Date Filed 09/08/21

Entry Number 18

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
MARIA BAUTISTA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-vs)
)
)
RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-3868-SAL-TER

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Ruiz Food Products, Inc.’s Consent Motions
to Consolidate (ECF No. 16) the following actions for the Court’s determination of whether
Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to mandatory arbitration:
1.

Maria Bautista v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 4:20-cv-03868-SAL-TER

2.

Ines Soler v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 4:20-cv-03869-SAL-TER

3.

Cirila Gonzalez v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 4:20-cv-03870-SAL-TER

4.

Carlos Flores v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 4:20-cv-03871-SAL-TER

5.

Julia Castellanos v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 4:20-cv-03908-SAL-TER

6.

Maria Landaverde v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 4:20-cv-03909-SAL-TER

7.

Hector Jimenez v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 4:20-cv-03910-SAL-TER

8.

Maria Ramirez v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 4:20-cv-03911-SAL-TER

9.

Maria Martinez v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 4:20-cv-03912-SAL-TER

10.

Berta Cazun v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 4:20-cv-03926-SAL-TER

11.

Jose Martinez v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 4:20-cv-03928-SAL-TER

12.

Maria Montas v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 4:20-cv-03935-SAL-TER

4:20-cv-03868-SAL-TER

13.

Date Filed 09/08/21

Entry Number 18

Page 2 of 3

Jorge Perez v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 4:20-cv-03936-SAL-TER

(collectively, the “Ruiz Food Cases”).
The Ruiz Food Cases involve similar facts and identical causes of action. Plaintiffs allege
that Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) by discriminating
against, retaliating against, and subjecting Plaintiffs to a hostile work environment because of their
respective Hispanic or Latino national origins. Defendant maintains that the Plaintiffs’ claims are
subject to a binding Arbitration Agreement pursuant to which each Plaintiff has agreed to submit any
and all claims arising out of or related to their employment with the company to arbitration.
Plaintiffs challenge the enforceability of the Arbitration Agreements.
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides,
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the
court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the
actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders
concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
Defendant represents that the basis upon which it will move to compel arbitration in each of
these actions is the same, and the questions of enforceability which Plaintiffs will raise in response
to the Motion to Compel Arbitration will be virtually identical. Further, Plaintiffs consent to
consolidation of the above referenced cases. Consolidation for the purposes of determining the
arbitrability of these cases is appropriate and in the best interest of judicial economy.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motions to Consolidate (ECF No. 16) are GRANTED, and the
above-referenced Ruiz Food cases shall be consolidated for purposes of determining whether
Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to mandatory arbitration. The present case, Maria Bautista v. Ruiz
Food Products, Inc., 4:20-cv-03868-SAL-TER, shall be designated the lead case and all future filings

-2-

4:20-cv-03868-SAL-TER

Date Filed 09/08/21

Entry Number 18

Page 3 of 3

should be filed in the present case. Defendant shall file a single Motion to Compel Arbitration
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiffs shall file a single brief in opposition to
Ruiz Food’s Motion to Compel Arbitration within fifteen (15) days after filing of the Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
September 8, 2021
Florence, South Carolina

-3-