Opinion
2:23-cv-02520 2:22-cv-03420
10-30-2023
Heather Markle and Theresa Wheeler, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SENIOR VILLAGE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant. Jerei Williams, Plaintiff, v. SENIOR VILLAGE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant.
CHELSEY M. VASCURA, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
OPINION & ORDER
ALGENON L. MARBLEY, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on the Parties' Joint Motion to Consolidate. (ECF No. 11). Specifically, the Motion moves to consolidate this matter with the lawsuit captioned Williams v. Senior Village Management, Case No. 2:22-cv-3420 (S.D. Ohio) (“the Williams lawsuit”). The Williams lawsuit is also pending before this Court. For the reasons set forth below, this Court GRANTS the Parties' Joint Motion to Consolidate.
II. BACKGROUND
On June 20, 2023, Plaintiffs Heather Markle and Teresa Wheeler filed a Complaint against Defendant Senior Village Management, LLC, alleging failure to pay employees overtime wages, in violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Plaintiffs bring their FLSA overtime claims as a representative action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees of the opt-in collective. (Id. ¶ 62). This matter was originally filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, but later transferred to the Southern District of Ohio by joint request of the Parties. (ECF Nos. 7, 9).
The Williams Complaint was filed on September 14, 2022. (22-cv-3420, ECF No. 1). In the Williams lawsuit, plaintiffs, including Plaintiffs Markle and Wheeler here, brought a collective and class action against defendants Senior Village Management LLC, Storypoint Holdings, LLC, and Senior Living Capital Management Company, LLC, for alleged failure to pay employees overtime wages, in violation of the FLSA, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. §§ 4111.01, et seq., and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, O.R.C. § 4113.15. (Id.). Before the named plaintiff in Williams filed any request to send a court-authorized notice to the potential opt-in plaintiffs in that case, the parties agreed to mediate. (23-cv-2520, ECF No. 11 at 3). Mediation, however, ultimately failed. (Id.)
The Parties now move for consolidation of this action with the Williams lawsuit.
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), if actions before a court involve a common question of law or fact, the court has the discretion to: (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. The underlying objective of consolidation “is to administer the court's business with expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties.” Advey v. Celotex Corp., 962 F.2d 1177, 1180 (6th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court must take care “that consolidation does not result in unavoidable prejudice or unfair advantage.” Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir. 1993).
For purposes of Rule 42 consolidation, questions of law and fact need not be identical. MacLean v. Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc., No. 2:09-CV-521, 2009 WL 2983072, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 14, 2009) (“[T]hese cases involve many of the same facts and legal issues . . . and that is enough to justify consolidation.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Rule 42 gives the Court discretion to consolidate as long as there are some common questions of law or fact. Id.
The lawsuit sub judice and the Williams case involve some of the same parties. Plaintiffs in the case sub judice, Ms. Heather Markle and Ms. Theresa Wheeler, are also plaintiffs in the Williams lawsuit. The Defendant in the case sub judice is also a defendant in the Williams lawsuit. In addition, both cases involve failure to pay employees overtime wages in violation of the FLSA. Overall, this Court finds there is significant overlap in law and fact between the lawsuit sub judice and the Williams lawsuit, which strongly supports consolidation.
The Court next turns to the question of whether specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion are overborne by the savings of litigant and judicial resources achieved by consolidation. Factors that may cause prejudice and confusion include complex legal theories and factual proof. See Choi v. Stevenson Co., No. 3:08-CV-0057-S, 2011 WL 1625055 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 28, 2011). Absent prejudice, consolidation is usually the most efficient method of adjudicating cases arising from common law or fact. MacLean, 2009 WL 2983072, at *1. Efficiency is determined by the need to analyze issues common to all parties, overlap in discovery, witnesses, and evidence. Id. at *2. Here, the Parties jointly requested consolidation and the Williams lawsuit is already pending before this Court. This Court finds that consolidation of the lawsuit sub judice with the Williams lawsuit will be the most efficient method of adjudicating these related matters and will not unfairly prejudice any parties or cause any significant confusion. Therefore, this Court GRANTS the Parties' Joint Motion to Consolidate. (ECF No. 11).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this Court GRANTS the Parties' Joint Motion to Consolidate. (ECF No. 11). Accordingly, the lawsuit sub judice is CONSOLIDATED with the lawsuit captioned Williams v. Senior Village Management, Case No. 2:22-cv-3420 (S.D. Ohio). All future filings should be made in the lawsuit sub judice, Markle et al v. Senior Village Management, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02520 (S.D. Ohio).
IT IS SO ORDERED.