Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02786/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02786-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steven J. Bandusky, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The Boeing Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2786-PHX-EHC

No. CV 07-1945-PHX-EHC

ORDER

Defendant has filed a Motion to Consolidate Matters (Dkt. 30) which is fully briefed

(Dkt. 34 & 36). Plaintiff pro se has filed a Motion for Clarification (Dkt. 41) of the Court’s

Order filed on November 15, 2007 (Dkt. 39 - Order), a Motion (First Request) for Settlement

Conference (Dkt. 42), and a Motion for Order to Compel (Dkt. 44) to require Defendant to

participate in an initial telephone conference. 

Defendant moves to consolidate Steven J. Bandusky v. The Boeing Company, Case

No. CV 07-1945-PHX-NVW, with the instant case. Defendant argues that these two cases

should be consolidated because they involve the same parties and factual allegations and

arise from the same transaction and events. 

Plaintiff has filed an Objection to Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate (Dkt. 34).

Plaintiff argues that although the cases arise from the same event, the causes of action are not

related. In CV 07-1945-PHX-NVW, Plaintiff has asserted a claim for wrongful termination

of employment under Arizona law while in the instant case Plaintiff’s claims involve federal

Case 2:06-cv-02786-EHC Document 49 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

law. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate is “an attempt to thwart justice

and should not be allowed” (Dkt. 34, p. 2). 

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the present case on November 21, 2006 (Dkt. 1).

Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by Defendant for a number of years, that he suffers

from disabling migraine headaches and that his request for a reasonable accommodation

(request to work from home) was denied. Plaintiff alleges that his employment with

Defendant was terminated on March 1, 2006. Plaintiff has asserted claims based on the

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. Plaintiff alleges receipt of a right-to-sue letter

dated August 25, 2006 (EEOC Charge # 540-2006-02628). Plaintiff filed a Notice of Right

to Sue (with attached letter) at Dkt. 3. Plaintiff seeks total damages of $1,970,000.00.

Jurisdiction is based on federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Civil Action No. 07-1945-PHX-NVW was originally filed in the Superior Court of

Maricopa County, State of Arizona, and removed to the District of Arizona on October 11,

2007. In this removed case, Plaintiff pro se asserts state law claims for breach of implied

employment contract and disability discrimination under Arizona law. Plaintiff alleges that

he suffers from migraine headaches, that Defendant’s personnel conspired to wrongfully

terminate his employment while he was under a physician’s care not to return to work, and

that the employment termination was effective March 1, 2006. Plaintiff alleges receipt of a

right-to-sue letter dated August 25, 2006 (EEOC Charge # 540-2006-02628). Plaintiff seeks

total damages of $1,970,000.00. Jurisdiction is based on diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The claims alleged in both cases arise from substantially the same event, are based on

substantially the same factual circumstances, and involve common questions of law.

Consolidation of the two cases is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a) and LRCiv 42.1.

Litigating these cases before the same judge as a consolidated case will avoid unnecessary

litigation costs and preserve judicial economy. Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate (Dkt. 30)

will be granted.

Case 2:06-cv-02786-EHC Document 49 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

Plaintiff has moved for clarification of that part of the Court’s November 15, 2007

Order (Dkt. 39) which stated that Plaintiff proceeding pro se may request appointment of

counsel by filing an appropriate motion. Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification will be granted

to the extent as follows. In certain circumstances, the Court may appoint counsel under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to represent any person unable to afford an attorney. The Court first

must consider whether the plaintiff’s claims seem likely to be of substance. The Court then

considers other relevant circumstances, including the plaintiff’s ability to investigate the

crucial facts, the plaintiff’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and

any special reason why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just

determination. 

If Plaintiff desires to seek appointed counsel, Plaintiff may file a Motion for

Appointment of Counsel within twenty (20) days of this Order. Plaintiff should support his

Motion for Appointment of Counsel by filing ex parte (for the Court only; no copy required

to be served on Defendant) and under seal (to ensure confidentiality) Plaintiff’s affidavit of

financial circumstances showing that Plaintiff cannot afford to hire an attorney.

In his Motion (First Request) for Settlement Conference (Dkt. 42), Plaintiff has

requested that Defendant contact Plaintiff by telephone to discuss possible resolution of the

parties’ differences. Plaintiff’s related Motion to Compel (Dkt. 44) seeks an Order requiring

Defendant to participate in a telephone conference. The Court’s Order (Dkt. 39) provided

that either party may file a motion requesting a settlement conference before a Magistrate

Judge. Plaintiff has not requested a settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff’s Motion (First Request) for Settlement Conference (Dkt. 42) and his related Motion

to Compel (Dkt. 44) will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate Matters (Dkt. 30) is

granted.

Case 2:06-cv-02786-EHC Document 49 Filed 12/21/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Steven J. Bandusky v. The Boeing Company,

Case No. CV 07-1945-PHX-NVW, shall be consolidated with Steven J. Bandusky v. The

Boeing Company, Case No. CV 06-2786-PHX-EHC. All future filings relating to these

cases shall be filed in Civil Action No. 06-2786-PHX-EHC which is the lead case. The

parties are directed to caption future filings as shown above in this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification (Dkt. 41) is

granted to the extent set forth in this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a Motion for Appointment of

Counsel within twenty (20) days of this Order. Plaintiff should support his Motion for

Appointment of Counsel by filing ex parte (for the Court only; no copy required to be served

on Defendant) and under seal (to ensure confidentiality) Plaintiff’s affidavit of financial

circumstances showing that Plaintiff cannot afford to hire an attorney.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (First Request) for Settlement

Conference (Dkt. 42), which seeks a telephone conference with Defendant, and related

Motion to Compel (Dkt. 44) are denied.

DATED this 20th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02786-EHC Document 49 Filed 12/21/07 Page 4 of 4