Summary
In Norris v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., 2002 WL 31556519 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 24, 2002), the plaintiff did not oppose the defendant's motion to consolidate the case which the defendant had removed from state court, asserting only state-law claims, with her federal case that asserted claims under ERISA, the ADA and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Summary of this case from Whitney v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Opinion
Civil Action No. C-1-02-183, Civil Action No. C-1-02-204
October 24, 2002
ORDER: (1) GRANTING THE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE (DOC. 4) FILED IN CASE NUMBER C-1-02-183; (2) THEREFORE CONSOLIDATING THE ABOVE TWO CASES; (3) CLARIFYING THAT ALL FUTURE FILINGS SHALL HE DOCKETED UNDER CASE NUMBER C-1-02-183; AND (4) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, AND THEREBY CLARIFY THAT PLAINTIFF NO LONGER PROCEEDS PRO SE WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF HER CLAIMS
These are two discrimination cases filed by the same plaintiff. In the first case ( i.e., the one with the lower docket number), plaintiff seeks relief from two defendants: (1) Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company ("Cincinnati Bell"); and (2) its parent company, Broadwing. In that case, plaintiff complains, alternatively, that she was terminated on March 20, 2001 on account of her age, her disability, or defendants' desire not to pay her ERISA benefits. To that end, she seeks relief under the ADEA, the ADA, and ERISA, along with multiple provisions of state law. Plaintiffs second complaint ( i.e., the one with the higher docket number) was filed in state court, and then removed here. In that second case, plaintiff seeks relief from Cincinnati Bell and Broadwing along with her labor union, the Communication Workers of America ("CWA"), and CWA Local 4400. That second complaint, premised exclusively upon state law, concerns — like her first complaint — whether plaintiffs March 20, 2001 discharge constituted age discrimination or disability discrimination. Plaintiff also claims in that second case that, when she filed a union grievance challenging her discharge, CWA and Local 4400 breached the duty of fair representation they owed to her.
Although the second complaint was filed pro se, it now appears that plaintiff proceeds in both cases with the assistance of counsel. To clarify the record, counsel shall file a Notice of Appearance in which lie clarifies that he represents plaintiff with respect to all of her claims pled in both complaints.
I.
Now before the Court is defendants' motion to consolidate plaintiffs two cases. See C-1-02-183, doc. 4. Consolidation is authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), "[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending . . . ." See In re Northeast Ohio Corr. Ctr., No. 99-3733, 2000 WL 553917. at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2000).
Plaintiff states that she "does not oppose consolidation if this Court determines that to be the appropriate course of action . . . ." C-1-02-183, doc. 6 at 4 (italics deleted). The Court finds consolidation appropriate here because both cases concern common questions of fact and law. The two cases concern common questions of fact because both cases turn on the factual reason(s) for plaintiffs discharge on March 20, 2001. The two cases present common questions of law because both cases concern the same legal issue: whether defendants violated the law when they discharged plaintiff on March 20, 2001. Consolidation is thus appropriate not only for discovery, but also for purposes of summary judgment and trial.
II.
The Court thus GRANTS the consolidation motion at issue, and CONSOLIDATES plaintiffs two cases under the LOWER DOCKET NUMBER, i.e., C-1-02-183. ALL FUTURE FILINGS shall be made in C4-02-183.