United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Chelsey M. Vascura, Magistrate Judge
OPINION & ORDER
ALGENON L. MARBLEY, JUDGE
are four related cases before this Court: 15-2956, Myers
et al. v. Marietta Hospital, et al.,
(“the class case”); 16-1187, Weckbacher v.
Marietta Hospital (“Weckbacher”), 17-438,
Myers & Butler v. Marietta Hospital
(“Myers & Butler”); and 17-439, Booth v.
Marietta Hospital (“Booth”). The class case
is a collective action brought by nurses who are and were
employed by Defendant hospital. The other three cases are
brought by plaintiffs who are members of that collective
action, alleging retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FSLA”). These three cases are
collectively referred to as “the retaliation
Court recently decided Motions for Summary Judgment in these
cases. In the class case, this Court granted Plaintiffs'
Motion to add Defendants Cantley and Young in their
individual capacities, and denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
Summary Judgment, finding that genuine disputes of material
fact remain. (ECF Nos. 246, 247). In Myers & Butler,
Weckbacher, and Booth, this Court denied
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment for the same
reason. (Myers & Butler, ECF Nos. 30, 31;
Weckbacher, ECF No. 29; Booth, ECF No. 23).
Court took notice that these four cases involve the same
parties, and the material facts that remain in genuine
dispute have substantial overlap across the four cases and
involve largely the same set of events. Accordingly, this
Court held a telephonic status conference on April 9, 2019 at
3:00 PM. The parties were asked to be prepared to discuss
Fed.R.Civ.P. 42. The parties' positions are memorialized
in a Joint Motion and Notice submitted by the parties.
(The class case, ECF No. 249; Myers &
Butler, ECF No. 33; Booth, ECF No. 25;
Weckbacher, ECF No. 31).
support consolidating Myers & Butler,
Weckbacher, and Booth - the retaliation
cases - but not consolidating those three cases with the
class case. Defendants do not support any consolidation of
reasons below, this Court hereby orders
consolidation of the retaliation cases - Myers & Butler,
Weckbacher, and Booth - but does not
consolidate these cases with the class case.
Law & Analysis
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
2. consolidate the actions; or
3. issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
There need not be “complete identity of legal and
factual issues posed in the cases which are the subject of
the request.” J4 Promotions, Inc. v. Splash Dogs,
LLC, 2010 WL 3063217, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2010).
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). If the conservation of judicial resources achieved
through consolidation “are slight, ...