UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

HAROLD RANDOLPH, 

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:11-cv-0096

v. Judge James L. Graham 

 Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

CORE SYSTEMS, LLC,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate this

Case with Bradley J. Lyons v. Core Systems, LLC, Case No. 2:10-cv-75 (“Lyons Case”). (ECF

No. 3.) The Court further DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension to File a Reply

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate (ECF No. 8) and Defendant’s

Motion to Strike (ECF No. 9). 

I.

Plaintiff, Harold Randolph, filed the instant action against Defendant, Core Systems,

LLC (“Core”), on January 31, 2011, asserting violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act

(“ADA”) and an Ohio state law claim. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff Randolph alleges that Defendant

Core terminated him because of information Core gathered during its health fair. The same day

that Plaintiff Randolph filed his Complaint, he also filed the subject Motion to Consolidate,

seeking to consolidate the instant action with the Lyons Case. (ECF No. 3.) Defendant opposes

consolidation. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00096-JLG-EPD Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/15/11 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Bradley J. Lyons filed the Lyons Case on January 26, 2010, against Core, asserting

violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), the ADA, and Ohio state law claims. 

(Lyons Case, ECF No. 2.) Lyons alleges that Core laid him off work after injuries and illnesses

forced him to miss four to eight weeks of work. In deposition, Lyons testified that he did not

believe Core laid him off due to his attendance at or the information he revealed during Core’s

health fair. Defendant Core’s February 2, 2011 Motion for Summary Judgment is pending in the

Lyons Case. (ECF No. 12.)

II. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) affords the trial court the discretion to consolidate

cases involving common questions of law or fact. Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007,

1010–11 (6th Cir. 1993); Mitchell v. Dutton, Nos. 87-5574, 87-5616, 87-5632, 87-5638, and

87-5647, 1989 WL 933, at *2 (6th Cir. Jan. 3, 1989). Rule 42(a) states as follows:

(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are

pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the

matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it

may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid

unnecessary costs or delay.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “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, 1181 (6th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In

Cantrell, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals advised that “the decision to consolidate is one that

must be made thoughtfully . . . . Care must be taken that consolidation does not result in

unavoidable prejudice or unfair advantage.” 999 F.2d at 1011. If the conservation of judicial

resources achieved through consolidation “are slight, the risk of prejudice to a party must be

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00096-JLG-EPD Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/15/11 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
viewed with even greater scrutiny.” Id. The Cantrell Court further instructed that a court should

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.”

Id. (quoting Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985)

(citations omitted)). 

 III.

Plaintiff Harrold asserts that the instant action should be consolidated with the Lyons

Case because both cases arise from a common set of facts, involve the same defendant, involve

management-level employees, involve the same legal issues, involve the same claims, and

involve the same witnesses. Defendant Core disagrees, asserting that the two actions involve

different claims, with only one similar claim. Defendant further posits that the only similar

claim, the disability discrimination claim, does not weigh in favor of consolidation because the

legal theories supporting this claim differ in each case. Defendant Core also contends that

judicial economy weighs against consolidation given the vastly differing stages of litigation. 

Finally, Defendant Core cites the danger of prejudice as factor weighing against consolidation. 

Although the Court recognizes that the cases share some common facts and legal issues,

the multiple considerations weighing against consolidation persuade the Court to deny

consolidation. First, for the reasons Defendant Core asserts, the overlap between the cases is not

as significant as Plaintiff suggests. Second, consolidation would result in unavoidable delay

given that the cases are in different stages of preparation. The Lyons Case, which was filed a

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00096-JLG-EPD Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/15/11 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
year earlier than the instant action, has proceeded to summary judgment. In contrast, in this

case, Defendant’s answer is not due until April 1, 2011. Finally, any conservation of judicial

resources accomplished through consolidation is outweighed by the substantial prejudice

consolidation would cause to Defedant Core.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate (ECF

No. 3) and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension to File a Reply Memorandum

in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate (ECF No. 8) and Defendant’s Motion to Strike

(ECF No. 9). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

March 15, 2011 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

 United States Magistrate Judge

4

Case: 2:11-cv-00096-JLG-EPD Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/15/11 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>