Price et al v. Shell Oil Company et al

Filing 232

ORDER. A district court has broad discretion when considering a motion to consolidate. Washington v. Daley, 173 F.3d 1158, 1169 n.13 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, consolidation is likely to cause delay, confusion and prejudiceweighing against consolidation . See Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Mach Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1984). Furthermore, the Court has already made it clear that Plaintiffs must retry their case as it stood in 2014. Plaintiff's 228 to Consolidate Cases is DENIED. The Court does not find Rule 11 sanctions appropriate here. Defendant's request for sanctions (Dkt. No. 229 ) is DENIED. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

RACHEL A. PRICE, an individual, and
TESSA A. GEHARDT an individual,

CASE NO. C11-1553-JCC
ORDER

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

12
13
14

EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a/
SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs motion to consolidate (Dkt. No. 228)
and Defendant’s request for sanctions (Dkt. No. 229). Having thoroughly considered the parties’
briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES
Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate and Defendant’s request for sanctions.
This case was remanded from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that a jury
instruction given at trial stated incorrect law. (Dkt. No. 220 at 3.) On remand, the Court set a new
trial date of January 29, 2018, stating “No further discovery or motions practice shall be
permitted.” (Dkt. No. 233 at 1.) Still, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file motions and take
discovery, which the Court denied. (Dkt. No. 227.) Plaintiffs then filed a new lawsuit, alleging
three additional failure to promote claims based on occurrences since the June 2014 trial. Price v.

ORDER
C11-1553-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

Equilon Enterprises, Case No. C17-13337-MJP. Plaintiffs now move to consolidate. They argue

2

the second law suit involves common issues of law and fact, identical parties, and minimal

3

additional discovery. (Dkt. No. 228 at 2.)

4

Defendant opposes the motion. (Dkt. No. 229.) It argues the addition of facts and claims

5

would confuse the jury and significantly lengthen trial. (Id. at 5.) Defendant further objects that

6

allowing discovery on additional claims less than three months from trial would substantially

7

prejudice Shell. (Id. at 4–5.)

8

A district court has broad discretion when considering a motion to consolidate.

9

Washington v. Daley, 173 F.3d 1158, 1169 n.13 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, consolidation is likely to

10

cause delay, confusion and prejudice—weighing against consolidation. See Southwest Marine,

11

Inc. v. Triple A Mach Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1984). Furthermore, the Court

12

has already made it clear that Plaintiffs must retry their case as it stood in 2014. Plaintiff’s

13

motion is DENIED.

14
15
16

The Court does not find Rule 11 sanctions appropriate here. Defendant’s request for
sanctions is DENIED.
DATED this 16th day of November 2017.

A

17
18
19

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C11-1553-JCC
PAGE - 2