UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KIMBERLY LAUTERBORN, :

:

 Plaintiff : No. 4:CV-05-0541

:

vs. : (Complaint filed 03/17/05)

:

R & T MECHANICAL, INC., : (Judge Muir)

:

Defendants : 

ORDER # 1 of

December 28, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On March 17, 2005, Plaintiff Kimberly Lauterborn initiated

this action by filing a complaint in which she alleges that

Defendant R & T Mechanical, Inc., violated the Federal Equal Pay

Act and the Pennsylvania Equal Pay Law. On November 22, 2005,

Lauterborn filed a separate complaint alleging that R & T

Mechanical, Inc., sexually harassed and retaliated against her. 

On November 30, 2005, Lauterborn filed a motion to

consolidate her two pending actions and a supporting brief. On

December 5, 2005, R & T Mechanical, Inc., filed a response and

opposition brief. The time allowed for Lauterborn to file a

reply brief expired on December 23, 2005, and to this date no

such brief has been filed. Lauterborn’s motion to consolidate is

ripe for disposition.

The pending motion is governed in large measure by Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 42, which states in relevant part that

Case 4:05-cv-00541-MM Document 28 Filed 12/28/05 Page 1 of 3
2

[w]hen 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). Courts have also observed that "[w]hen

considering consolidation the court 'must balance the benefits of

judicial economy and expediting the litigation against the

possibility of prejudice.’" Janovici v. DVI, Inc., 2003 WL

22849604, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Nov 25, 2003)(Davis, J.)(quoting Kerley

v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 1996 WL 131136, at *1 (E.D. Pa.

March 20, 1996)). Ultimately, "[c]onsolidation is at the

discretion of the trial court and should be permitted where the

consolidation of separate actions presenting common questions of

law or fact will promote convenience and economy in judicial

administration." Rosario v. SCM Group USA, Inc., 2003 WL

21982116, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 2, 2003)(Tucker, J.).

R & T Mechanical, Inc., initially contends that Lauterborn’s

two actions should not be consolidated because there are no

common questions of law or fact. Based on the information

presented to us, it appears that the only common aspect between

the two cases is the identity of the parties. We are of the view

that additional common elements should exist before separate

matters are consolidated.

In addition, R & T Mechanical, Inc., notes that the abovecaptioned matter is on our March, 2006 Trial List, and

Case 4:05-cv-00541-MM Document 28 Filed 12/28/05 Page 2 of 3
3

Lauterborn’s subsequent action has not yet been placed on a trial

list because the case management conference will not occur until

January 31, 2005. Consolidating the cases would require a

substantial delay in resolving the above-captioned case. 

R & T Mechanical, Inc., further argues that consolidating

the two cases would prejudice R & T Mechanical, Inc. If the

cases proceed separately, the evidence concerning Lauterborn’s

sexual harassment and retaliation claims would not be admissible

in the trial on her equal pay claims. However, if a single jury

considers all of Lauterborn’s claims, then the jury deciding the

equal pay claims would hear the otherwise inadmissible evidence

relating to the sexual harassment and retaliation claims. The

potential prejudice resulting from the introduction of such

evidence is an appropriate reason not to consolidate cases. See

Farahmand v. Rumsfeld, 2002 WL 31630709 (E.D. Pa. 2002).

For the reasons noted above, we will deny Lauterborn’s

motion to consolidate her two pending cases.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Lauterborn’s motion (Document 14) to consolidate her two

pending actions is denied.

s/Malcolm Muir 

MUIR, U.S. District Judge

MM:ga

Case 4:05-cv-00541-MM Document 28 Filed 12/28/05 Page 3 of 3