Stokes v. American Cyanamid Co

Filing 235

DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 7/15/15 granting 226 Motion to Consolidate Cases. (cc: all counsel) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
_____________________________________________________________________
GLENN BURTON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 07-cv-0303

AMERICAN CYANAMID, et al.,
Defendants;
RAVON OWENS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 07-cv-0441

AMERICAN CYANAMID, et al.,
Defendants;
ERNEST GIBSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 07-cv-0864

AMERICAN CYANAMID, et al.,
Defendants;
BRIONN STOKES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 07-cv-0865

AMERICAN CYANAMID, et al.,
Defendants;
CESAR SIFUENTES,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN CYANAMID, et al.,
Defendants;
MANIYA ALLEN, et al.,

Case No. 10-cv-0075

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 11-cv-0055

AMERICAN CYANAMID, et al.,
Defendants;
DEZIREE VALOE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 11-cv-0425

AMERICAN CYANAMID, et al.,
Defendants;
DIJONAE TRAMMELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-1423

AMERICAN CYANAMID, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases allegedly consumed lead-based paint as
children. They now bring negligence and failure to warn claims against defendants,
companies which allegedly manufactured, sold, or marketed lead-based paint in
Wisconsin. All cases are pending before me except Gibson v. American Cyanamid Co.,
No. 07-cv-0864, which is before Judge Randa. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, and plaintiffs now ask me to consolidate the cases solely for the
purpose of deciding these motions.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), I may consolidate actions which have a common
question of law or fact, and I may issue orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.

2

Consolidation “is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Canedy v.
Boardman, 16 F.3d 183, 185 (7th Cir. 1994). I agree with plaintiffs that consolidation is
appropriate. The pending cases involve a common question of law, whether this court has
personal jurisdiction over defendants. The legal issue raised in defendants’ motions is
identical. Consolidation will also avoid inconsistent results and promote judicial economy,
see 8 James Wm. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 42.10(4)(a) (3d ed. 2008)
(conserving resources and avoiding inconsistent results weigh in favor of consolidation).
Finally, consolidation will avoid unnecessary delay.1 Thus, I will consolidate the actions for
purposes of resolution of the pending personal jurisdiction motions. The Gibson case will
remain before Judge Randa for all other purposes.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motions to consolidate for purposes
of the personal jurisdiction motions (No. 11-cv-055, ECF No. 118; No. 07-cv-0303, ECF
No. 285; No. 07-cv-0441, ECF No. 250; 07-cv-0864, ECF No. 244; No. 07-cv-0865, ECF
No. 226; No. 10-cv-075, ECF No. 153; No. 11-cv-0425, ECF No. 79; No. 14-cv-1423, ECF
No. 36) are GRANTED. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for the limited
purpose of resolving the pending motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 15th day of July, 2015.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

1

We have already seen how unnecessary delay can occur. In 2010, Judge
Randa, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Gibson. This resulted in a
long stay of all the other cases while Gibson was successfully appealed.
3