Logan v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE. Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Companys Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Cases ECF No. 28 is GRANTED. The cases of Logan v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 2:17-CV-0394-TOR and Gonzales v. BNSF Rail way Company, 4:17-CV-5193-TOR are CONSOLIDATED as 2:17-CV-0394-TOR. No further filings shall be made in 4:17-CV-5193-TOR, which file shall be administratively closed. The now consolidated scheduling conference calendared for 3/7/2018 at 1:30 p.m. REMAINS SET. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7
8

MICHAEL L. LOGAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,

NO. 2:17-CV-0394-TOR

9
v.
10
11

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant,

12
13

and

14
15
16

GREGORY NEAL GONZALES,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

17

NO. 2:17-CV-5193-TOR

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED
MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE

18

v.

19

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,

20

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE ~ 1

1

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company’s

2

Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 28). Union Pacific Railroad

3

Company requests the court consolidate this case, Logan v. Union Pacific Railroad

4

Company, 2:17-CV-0394-TOR, with another action pending before this Court,

5

Gonzales v. BNSF Railway Company, 4:17-CV-5193-TOR. In Gonzales, BNSF

6

Railway filed an identical Unopposed Motion to Consolidate. 4:17-CV-5193-

7

TOR, ECF No. 27. These matters were submitted for consideration without oral

8

argument. The Court—having reviewed the briefing, the record, and files

9

therein—is fully informed. As discussed below, the motions (ECF Nos. 28 and 27,

10
11
12

respectively) are GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
In early November 2017, Plaintiffs Michael Logan and Gregory Gonzales

13

filed complaints in Washington Superior Court on behalf of themselves and

14

putative classes of current and former employees from Union Pacific and BNSF,

15

respectively. Logan, ECF No. 1-1 at ¶ 1; Gonzales, ECF No. 1-1 at ¶ 1. In late

16

November 2017, both cases were removed to this Court. See Logan, ECF No. 1-1;

17

Gonzales, ECF No. 1-1. In both cases, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to

18

pay employees for rest periods in violation of section 296-126-092(4) of the

19

Washington Administrative Code and that these violations were willful or

20

intentional pursuant to RCW 49.52.050, 070. Logan, ECF No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 24-37;

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE ~ 2

1

Gonzales, ECF No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 25-38. Plaintiffs assert these claims individually and

2

on behalf of purported classes of similarly situated employees. Logan, ECF No. 1-

3

1 at ¶ 15; Gonzales, ECF No. 1-1 at ¶ 16.

4

In response to Plaintiffs’ claims and allegations, Defendants both argue that

5

Washington’s laws and regulations pertaining to rest periods do not apply to

6

railroad employees because they are preempted by federal law. Logan, ECF No. 3

7

at 6-7; Gonzales, ECF No. 2 at 8-9.

8

DISCUSSION

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) governs consolidation in federal

10
11
12

courts, and 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.

13
14

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “The district court has broad discretion under this rule to

15

consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist.

16

Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining

17

whether to consolidate cases, the court should “weigh the interest of judicial

18

convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice.” Zhu v.

19

UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

20

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE ~ 3

1

The Court finds that consolidation of the two cases is appropriate. As the

2

parties in Logan and Gonzales have stipulated – and as the pleadings amply

3

demonstrate – both cases “involve identical issues of law and virtually identical

4

issues of fact[,]” Logan, ECF No. 28 at 4; Gonzales, ECF No. 27 at 2, which

5

satisfies requirements of Rule 42. The Court finds Consolidation will save judicial

6

resources without causing any potential delay, confusion or prejudice to the parties.

7

Indeed, consolidation will favor the parties and they have stipulated to the

8

consolidation. Finally, consolidation presents no conflicts of interest, and

9

resolution of the cases together will ensure consistency in the findings and

10

conclusions of the Court.

11

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:

12
13
14
15

1. Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company’s Unopposed Motion to
Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED.
2. Defendant BNSF Railway Company’s Unopposed Motion to Consolidate
Cases (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED.

16

3. The cases of Logan v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 2:17-CV-0394-

17

TOR and Gonzales v. BNSF Railway Company, 4:17-CV-5193-TOR are

18

CONSOLIDATED as 2:17-CV-0394-TOR. No further filings shall be

19

made in 4:17-CV-5193-TOR, which file shall be administratively closed.

20

All pleadings therein maintain their legal relevance. Any further

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE ~ 4

1

pleadings received by the Clerk of Court for case number 4:17-CV-5193-

2

TOR shall be filed in this consolidated case, case number 2:17-CV-0394-

3

TOR.

4
5
6
7
8

4. The now consolidated scheduling conference calendared for March 7,
2018 at 1:30 p.m. REMAINS SET.
The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order, provide
copies to counsel, and administratively CLOSE 4:17-CV-5193-TOR.
DATED March 1, 2018.

9
10

THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE ~ 5