United States District Court, D. Idaho
CORY EDWARDS, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
PJ OPS IDAHO, LLC, et al, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. NYE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
before the Court is a Consent Motion to Consolidate Cases.
Dkt. 49. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS
the Motion to consolidate is unopposed, after the joint
filing, Defendants filed a notice in which they clarified
that they do not oppose consolidation of the cases, but they
do oppose any amendments to the complaint. This concern
regards the final line of the consent motion, which reads,
“Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to
grant Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate and for leave to
file the attached Consolidated Amended Complaint.” Dkt.
49, at 3.
Court notes that there was no attached Consolidated Amended
Complaint, so the Court does not know what amendments
Plaintiffs are seeking. If the amended complaint would simply
add the name of the consolidated case parties, such is
unnecessary. By its very nature, consolidation means that the
two cases merge. The Court deems any and all related parties,
claims, and filings in the companion case to be part of the
the other hand, Plaintiffs seek to make other amendments to
the Complaint, the Court agrees with Defendants that a
separate filing and motion will be necessary to accomplish
this. This decision to grant the motion therefore only
applies to the consolidation of the two cases, not amendment
of the Complaint.
5, 2017, Cory Edwards, as named Plaintiff, filed the above
captioned case on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated against PJ Ops Idaho, LLC, and other “PJ
Ops” defendants alleging unpaid minimum wages and
unpaid overtime wages for delivery drivers, such as himself.
Since the initial filing, numerous plaintiffs have opted into
September 8, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Conditionally
Certify a FLSA Class Action and to Authorize Notice. Dkt. 29.
However, before the completion of briefing in that matter,
the parties became aware that James Hollingsworth filed a
lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of
Kansas based upon the same set of facts and
circumstances. The Court and Counsel elected to
unofficially “stay” any action in this case until
a determination could be reached regarding the Kansas case.
On January 23, 2018, the Parties jointly moved the District
of Kansas for an order transferring the case to the District
of Idaho. The District of Kansas granted the same, and upon
transfer to the District of Idaho, the Clerk of the Court
transferred that case to the undersigned.
parties then jointly moved for consolidation of the two
42(a) authorizes a district court to consolidate cases that
share “a common question of law or fact.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). The Court has broad discretion to order
consolidation, and in exercising that discretion should
“weigh the saving of time and effort consolidation
would produce against any inconvenience, delay or expenses
that it would cause.” Huene v. United States,
743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).
Motion is uncontested, the Court will not undertake an
in-depth analysis of the various factors relied upon when
weighing consolidation but will simply note that these cases
clearly share common questions of law and fact and
consolidation will not cause any prejudice, inconvenience, or
undue delay. To the contrary, ...