1

 “[#6]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02239-REB-KMT

EDIE GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOTEL POWERS, INC., d/b/a HAMPTON INN,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02361-RPM

NICHOLE WITTER-GORTNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOTEL POWERS, INC. d/b/a HAMPTON INN,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Blackburn, J.

The matter before me is the defendant’s Motion To Consolidate [#6]1

 filed

September 29, 2011. The plaintiff filed a response [#7], and the defendant filed a reply

[#8]. I grant the motion.

The determination whether to consolidate cases is governed by Rule 42(a) of the

Case 1:11-cv-02361-REB-KMT Document 7 Filed 10/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2

 As the district judge to whom the oldest numbered case involved in the proposed consolidation

is assigned for trial, the question whether to consolidate these matters falls to me for determination. 

See D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1. 

2

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides, pertinently:

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).2

 This rule allows the court “to decide how cases on its docket are

to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched with expedition and

economy while providing justice to the parties.” Breaux v. American Family Mutual

Insurance Co., 220 F.R.D. 366, 367 (D. Colo. 2004) (quoting 9 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER,

FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2381 at 427 (2nd ed. 1995)). The decision

whether to consolidate cases is committed to my sound discretion. Shump v. Balka,

574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978).

The defendant moves to consolidate the two cases identified in the caption of this

order. Both cases plead claims for employment discrimination under Title VII. The

plaintiffs in both cases were employed by the defendant, Hotel Powers, Inc. d/b/a

Hampton Inn, and both plaintiffs were terminated by the defendant on the same day. 

Both plaintiffs bring claims of sex discrimination, hostile work environment, wrongful

termination, and retaliation. The defendant contends that both cases involve the

defendant’s decision to replace the staff at the hotel because the hotel was under

performing and had multiple employee problems. 

In Civil Action No. 11-cv-02239-REB-KMT, plaintiff, Edie Garcia, alleges that she

was employed by the defendant and was harassed routinely by Jozef Petraszek, an

Case 1:11-cv-02361-REB-KMT Document 7 Filed 10/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

individual who is one of the owners of Hotel Powers, Inc. Complaint [#1], pp. 3 - 4. Ms.

Garcia alleges that on September 22, 2010, Petraszek locked her in an office with him,

screamed at her, threatened her, threw papers at her, and waved a hunting knife while

yelling at her. Id. Ultimately, on September 27, 2010, Ms. Garcia was terminated by

the defendant based on the defendant’s allegations that Ms. Garcia was involved in

credit card fraud and padding her time card. Id., p. 4. Ms. Garcia denies these

allegations.

In Civil Action No. 11-cv-02361-RPM, plaintiff, Nichole Witter-Gortner, alleges

that she was employed by the defendant and was harassed routinely by Jozef

Petraszek. Complaint [#1], pp. 3 - 4. Ms. Witter Gortner alleges that on September 24,

2010, she told Slawek Pietraszek, another owner of Hotel Powers, Inc., that she was

going to call the police about Jozef Petraszek. Ms. Witter-Gortner says her employment

was terminated on September 27, 2010. Ms. Witter-Gortner alleges that at the time of

her termination, she was told her termination was based on low hotel scores. She

alleges that she was accused later by the defendant of having relatives and friends stay

improperly at the hotel and of being involved in a credit card scam. She denies these

allegations. 

Although there are some differences in the claims asserted by the two plaintiffs,

their factual allegations and their Title VII claims generally are very similar. It is clear

that common questions of law and fact predominate in these two cases such that

consolidation will be appropriate and efficacious. Any differences in the claims asserted

by the two plaintiffs can be accommodated in a consolidated case.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the defendant’s Motion To Consolidate [#6] filed September 29, 2011,

Case 1:11-cv-02361-REB-KMT Document 7 Filed 10/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

is GRANTED;

2. That under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, WitterGortner v. Hotel Powers, Inc. d/b/a Hampton Inn, Civil Action No. 11-cv-02361-RPM

is CONSOLIDATED with Garcia v. Hotel Powers, Inc. d/b/a Hampton Inn, Civil Action

No. 11-cv-02239-REB-KMT;

3. That under D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Action No.11-cv-02361-RPM is

REASSIGNED to United States District Judge Robert E. Blackburn;

4. That under D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Action No.11-cv-02361-RPM is

ASSIGNED to United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen Tafoya; and 

5. That all future filings in these consolidated actions SHALL BE CAPTIONED

as shown below:

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02239-REB-KMT

(Consolidated with Civil Action No. 11-cv-02361-REB-KMT)

EDIE GARCIA and

NICHOLE WITTER-GORTNER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HOTEL POWERS, INC., d/b/a HAMPTON INN,

Defendant.

Dated October 28, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02361-REB-KMT Document 7 Filed 10/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4