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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?