Coach v. BarDett, LLC et al

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING MOTION 15 TO CONSOLIDATE CASES. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 1/4/2017. (Anderson, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
WILLIE A. COACH,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARDETT, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 16-cv-2462-STA-tmp

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate, filed November 30, 2016. (ECF
No. 15.) Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 17, 2016, alleging racial discrimination based on
his termination by Defendant. (ECF No. 1.) On the same date, Tommy Walker filed a similar
action, currently pending before Judge Sheryl H. Lipman, also alleging racial discrimination
based on his termination by Defendant. (Walker Compl., ECF No. 15-2.) Defendant argues that,
because the two cases contain common issues of law and fact, the Court should consolidate the
cases. While Plaintiff indicated in the Certificate of Consultation that he opposed the Motion, he
did not file a response.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 permits the Court to consolidate multiple actions
where they “involve a common question of law or fact.” The Court has broad discretion to
consider whether to consolidate cases. See Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir.
1993). Amongst the factors a Court may consider are:
[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.

Id. (quoting Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 7776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985)).
Here, while there are common questions of law and fact amongst Plaintiffs’ actions, there
will also likely be distinct factual allegations, given that the actions involve two individual
Plaintiffs. There is some risk of prejudice or confusion in trying two individuals’ discrimination
cases in one action where there are two separate sets of circumstances leading to each
individual’s termination. Given that the cases are proceeding under similar schedules, the Parties
should be able to consolidate discovery such that much of the expenses of potentially duplicative
litigation will not need to be expended, even though the cases will proceed separately.
The factors to be considered weigh against consolidation.

Defendant’s Motion to

consolidate is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 4th day of January, 2017.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE