IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CRAIG S. JONES, et al., : 

Plaintiffs, : Case No. 2:11-cv-380

v. : JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON

KERRY A. ALLEN, PLAN : Magistrate Judge Kemp

ADMINISTRATOR, et al., 

:

Defendants. 

_________________________________________________________________

CRAIG S. JONES, et al., : 

Plaintiffs, : Case No. 2:14-cv-242

v. : JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON

ORIX USA CORPORATION, : Magistrate Judge Kemp

Defendant. :

OPINION AND ORDER

This ERISA case is before the Court to resolve Defendants’

Motion to Consolidate Case No. 2:14-CV-242 with Related Case No.

2:11-CV-380 (Case No. 11-cv-380, Doc. 180; Case No. 14-cv-242, Doc.

16). This motion has been fully briefed. For the reasons that

follow, the Court will grant the Motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are former employees of one of the mortgage and

investment banking entities collectively referred to as Red

Capital. On May 3, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against

the four entities that are collectively referred to as Red

Capital, the company that acquired Red Capital on December 31,

2008 (the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (“PNC”)), certain

severance benefits plans, and the plan administrator for those

Case: 2:11-cv-00380-MHW-TPK Doc #: 199 Filed: 09/22/14 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
plans alleging that Defendants retaliated against them for

exercising certain rights pursuant to ERISA and wrongfully denied

their ERISA benefits. (Case No. 11-cv-380, Doc. 2). Plaintiffs

claimed benefits in connection with two changes in ownership of

Red Capital. The first was the purchase of Red Capital’s sole

owner, National City, by PNC on December 31, 2008. As to the

second, Plaintiffs alleged that an investor group led by ORIX USA

Corp. acquired Red Capital on May 8, 2010. (Doc. #2 at ¶30). 

Plaintiffs did not include ORIX USA Corp. (“ORIX”) as a defendant

in the original complaint. 

On December 16, 2013, Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend

the Complaint to add certain claims and factual allegations, and

to add ORIX USA Corporation (“ORIX”) as an additional defendant

for purposes of Plaintiffs’ existing retaliation claim. 

Defendants opposed this motion. On March 10, 2014, while their

motion for leave to amend was pending, Plaintiffs filed Case No.

14-cv-242 against ORIX USA Corporation bringing a claim for

retaliation based on the same facts as the retaliation claim in

the original action. The allegations in that complaint state

that Plaintiffs filed the new action against ORIX in order to

preserve their claim because the Court had not yet ruled on their

motion to amend. On March 21, 2014, the Court granted in part

and denied in part the motion to amend, in particular, granting

the motion to amend to add ORIX as a defendant in relation to

Plaintiffs’ retaliation claim. Plaintiffs filed the amended

complaint. Then, after Case No. 14-cv-242 was deemed a related

action and transferred to Judge Watson’s docket, Plaintiffs

withdrew the amended complaint in Case No. 11-cv-380 and decided

to proceed against ORIX based on the complaint filed in Case No.

14-cv-242. 

Now Defendants have moved to consolidate the two civil

actions. 

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00380-MHW-TPK Doc #: 199 Filed: 09/22/14 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
II. ANALYSIS

Consolidation of cases is provided for in Rule 42(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states, in pertinent

part, that the Court may order consolidation of actions involving

“a common question of law or fact . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

42(a). The purpose 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) (quoting 9 Wright & Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure, §2381 (1971)). Courts should

thoughtfully consider “[w]hether the specific risks of prejudice

and possible confusion [are] overborne by the risk of

inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues,

the burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources

posed by multiple lawsuits, the length of time required to

conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative

expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial

alternatives.” Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th

Cir. 1993) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

“[C]onsolidation does not merge the suits into a single

action, change the rights of the parties, or make parties in one

suit parties in the other.” Twaddle v. Diem, 200 F. App'x 435,

438 n.4 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289

U.S. 479, 496–97 (1933) (interpreting predecessor of Rule

42(a))). “[I]t is the district court's responsibility to ensure

that parties are not prejudiced by consolidation.” Lewis v. ACB

Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 412-13 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing

Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and

Procedure § 2385 (2d ed.1994)).

The parties do not dispute that the actions before the court

involve numerous common questions of law and fact. The parties

have not raised any risks of confusion, nor is the Court aware of

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00380-MHW-TPK Doc #: 199 Filed: 09/22/14 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
any. Plaintiffs have raised the issue of prejudice with respect

to discovery rights. However, the case law makes it clear that

consolidation does not change the rights of the parties, and the

Court can address discovery issues as they arise. All of the

other factors are either neutral or weigh in favor of

consolidation. It appears that all parties will benefit from the

consolidation of the two actions, and judicial economy favors

consolidation. Accordingly, it is appropriate here to

consolidate the actions. 

III. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Consolidate is

granted. The Court ORDERS the consolidation of the abovecaptioned cases under Case No. 2:11-cv-380, and DIRECTS the

parties to file all future matters in Case No. 2:11-cv-380. The

Clerk of Courts is directed to file a copy of this order in both

Case Nos. 2:11-cv-380 and 2:14-cv-242. 

IV. PROCDURE ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is

filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for

reconsideration by a District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),

Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern Division Order No. 14–01,

pt. IV(C)(3)(a). The motion must specifically designate the

order or part in question and the basis for any objection. 

Responses to objections are due fourteen days after objections

are filed and replies by the objecting party are due seven days

thereafter. The District Judge, upon consideration of the

motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to be

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Case: 2:11-cv-00380-MHW-TPK Doc #: 199 Filed: 09/22/14 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
This order is in full force and effect even if a motion for

reconsideration has been filed unless it is stayed by either the

Magistrate Judge or District Judge. S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.3.

/s/ Terence P. Kemp 

United States Magistrate Judge

5

Case: 2:11-cv-00380-MHW-TPK Doc #: 199 Filed: 09/22/14 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>