UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION
GARRISON SOUTHFIELD
PARK LLC,
Plaintiff, Case No. 2:17-cv-783
CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
CLOSED LOOP REFINING
AND RECOVERY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
OLYMBEC USA LLC,
Plaintiff, Case No. 2:19-cv-1041
CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
CLOSED LOOP REFINING
AND RECOVERY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Garrison Southfield Park LLC’s (“Plaintiff
Garrison”) Motion to Consolidate with Olymbec USA LLC vy. Closed Loop Refining and
Recovery, Inc. (17-CV-783, ECF No. 86); Defendants Kuusakoski Glass Recycling, LLC,
Kuusakoski Inc., Kuusakoski U.S., LLC, and Vintage Tech, LLCs’ (“the Kuusakoski
Defendants”) Response in Partial Opposition (ECF No. 94); and Plaintiff Garrison’s Reply brief
(ECF No. 97). Also before the Court is Plaintiff Olymbec USA LLC’s (“Plaintiff Olymbec”)
Unopposed Motion to Consolidate with Garrison Southfield Park LLC v. Closed Loop Refining

and Recovery, Inc. (19-CV-1041, ECF No. 3).


Plaintiff Garrison initiated Case Number 17-CV-783 on September 5, 2017, seeking
declaratory judgment, cost recovery, and common law damages “resulting from environmental
contamination” at two of Plaintiff Garrison’s warehouses. (17-CV-783, Compl. § 1, ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff Olymbec filed its Complaint in Case Number 19-CV-1041 on March 20, 2019, also
seeking declaratory judgment, cost recovery, and common law damages from environmental
contamination at one of its warehouse properties. (19-CV-1041, Compl. § 1, ECF No. 1). Both
Plaintiffs bring claims under (1) the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, (2) the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, and (3) common law.

The Court related the cases on April 17, 2019. (19-CV-1041, ECF No. 23). Both
Plaintiffs have moved for consolidation for all purposes. The Kuusakoski Defendants partially
oppose Plaintiff Garrison’s Motion, arguing that consolidation for expert discovery, dispositive
motions, and trial “is premature and potentially prejudicial.” (17-CV-783, Opp’n at 1, ECF No.
94). Specifically, the Kuusakoski Defendants aver that “significant factual differences do or may
exist between the facilities and their individual cleanups . . . the numerous defendants and their
relationship to the facilities . . . [and] between Plaintiffs Garrison and Olymbec which will
differentially affect the allocation of liability under [CERCLAJ.” (Jd. at 2). The Kuusakoski
Defendants “do not object to the motion for consolidation for pretrial purposes through fact
discovery.” (Jd. at 1).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) authorizes the consolidation of cases that “involve
acommon question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). District courts enjoy considerable
discretion in deciding whether to consolidate cases. Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011

(6th Cir. 1993); Advey v. Celotex Corp., 962 F.2d 1177, 1180 (6th Cir. 1992). “The underlying


objective [of consolidation] is to administer the court’s business ‘with expedition and economy
while providing justice to the parties.” Advey, 962 F.2d at 1180 (quoting 9 Charles Alan Wright
& Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2381 (1971)).

At this stage, the parties have not completed sufficient factual discovery to determine
whether consolidation for expert discovery, dispositive motions, or trial would “result in
unavoidable prejudice or unfair advantage.” Cantrell, 999 F.2d at 1011. Accordingly, Plaintiff
Garrison’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part (17-CV-783, ECF No. 86), and
Plaintiff Olymbec’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part (19-CV-1041, ECF
No. 3). Case Number 17-CV-783 and Case Number 19-CV-1041 are hereby consolidated for
purposes of fact discovery. Plaintiffs’ requests to consolidate the cases past fact discovery are
DENIED without prejudice pending the completion of fact discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SF -B ON

DATE EDMUND }. SARGUS, JR.
CHIEF TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE