Lucio v. Stemilt Growers, LLC et al, No. 1:2015cv03082 - Document 43 (E.D. Wash. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PLAINTIFFS RELATED CASES AGAINST DEFENDANTS. The Stipulated Motion to Consolidate Plaintiffs Related Cases Against Defendants ECF No. 42 is GRANTED. The cases, Patricia Lucio v. Stemilt Growers, LLC, et al., case no. 1:15-CV-3082-TOR, and Patricia Lucio v. Stemilt Growers, LLC, et al., case no. 2:16-CV-0303-TOR, are CONSOLIDATED as 1:15-CV-3082-TOR. No further filings shall be made in 2:16-CV-0303-TOR, which file shall be administratively closed. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lucio v. Stemilt Growers, LLC et al Doc. 43 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 PATRICIA LUCIO, NO: 1:15-CV-3082-TOR Plaintiff, 8 9 10 v. STEMILT GROWERS, LLC, and STEMILT AG SERVICES, LLC, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PLAINTIFF’S RELATED CASES AGAINST DEFENDANTS 11 Defendants. 12 13 BEFORE THE COURT is the Stipulated Motion to Consolidate Plaintiff’s 14 Related Cases Against Defendants (ECF No. 42). This matter was submitted for 15 consideration without oral argument. The Court—having reviewed the briefing, the 16 record, and files therein—is fully informed. 17 BACKGROUND 18 This case concerns the alleged discrimination and retaliation Plaintiff 19 suffered at her former workplace because of her age, sex, race, and/or national 20 origin, and her efforts at raising awareness of discrimination in the workplace. ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PLAINTIFF’S RELATED CASES AGAINST DEFENDANTS ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff commenced the instant action on February 24, 2015, asserting the 2 following claims: (1) deprivation of equal rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 3 (2) discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and national origin in violation of 4 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination 5 (“WLAD”), RCW ch. 49.60; (3) discrimination on the basis of age in violation of 6 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623, and the 7 WLAD, RCW ch. 49.60; (4) interference with her rights under the Family Medical 8 Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2611; and (5) violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 9 § 206(d)(1). ECF No. 1. 10 At the time Plaintiff filed her Complaint, she awaited a response from the 11 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regarding a charge 12 Plaintiff filed with the EEOC asserting additional claims grounded on the same 13 facts at issue in this action. ECF No. 42 at 2; see also 2:16-CV-0303-TOR, ECF 14 No. 1 at 3. Following Plaintiff’s receipt of the EEOC’s right-to-sue letter on May 15 31, 2016, Plaintiff initiated a second action in this Court styled, Patricia Lucio v. 16 Stemilt Growers, LLC, et al., case no. 2:16-CV-00303-TOR. Id. 17 Specifically, Plaintiff filed the second action on August 23, 2016, asserting 18 the following claims: (1) deprivation of rights secured through 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) 19 (sic) (“Title VII”); (2) discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the ADEA, 20 29 U.S.C. § 623; and (3) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PLAINTIFF’S RELATED CASES AGAINST DEFENDANTS ~ 2 1 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 USC § 12101. 2:16-CV- 2 0303-TOR, ECF No. 1. 3 In the instant stipulated motion, the parties assert that the factual allegations 4 giving rise to the claims in the second action (2:16-CV-0303-TOR) are the same 5 facts alleged in this action, and the new causes of action parallel the existing 6 claims. 1 ECF No. 42 at 2. Accordingly, the parties stipulate to the consolidation of 7 case no. 1:15-CV-3082-TOR with case no. 2:16-CV-0303-TOR, and 8 simultaneously request leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to reflect 9 the consolidated claims. Id. 10 DISCUSSION 11 A. Case Consolidation 12 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), which governs consolidation, 13 “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court 14 may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) 15 consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or 16 delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “The district court has broad discretion under this 17 18 19 1 The Court recognizes that Defendants expressly reserve their right to challenge the merits and procedural adequacy of any additional claims. Id. 20 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PLAINTIFF’S RELATED CASES AGAINST DEFENDANTS ~ 3 1 rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. 2 Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). 3 In determining whether to consolidate cases, the court should “weigh the 4 interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and 5 prejudice.” Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 6 2010). 7 The Court finds that consolidation of the two cases is appropriate. The 8 factual allegations in each complaint are founded upon the same allegations of 9 discrimination and retaliation Plaintiff suffered at her former workplace. Compare 10 1:15-CV-3082-TOR, ECF No. 1 at 2-8, with 2:16-CV-0303-TOR, ECF No. 1 at 3- 11 9. The Court determines that consolidation will reduce delay and confusion 12 without prejudicing the parties. Consolidation of the cases will also allow the 13 Court to hear all dispositive motions in conjunction, expediting their resolution. 14 Finally, consolidation presents no conflicts of interest, and resolution of the cases 15 together will ensure consistency in the findings and conclusions of the Court. 16 Accordingly, the parties stipulated request for consolidation is granted. 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PLAINTIFF’S RELATED CASES AGAINST DEFENDANTS ~ 4 1 B. Leave to Amend Plaintiff’s Complaint 2 The parties request that the Court grant leave for Plaintiff to file her First 3 Amended Complaint to Consolidate Claims. See ECF Nos. 42 at 2 and 42-1. The 4 Court previously entered a Jury Trial Scheduling Order in this action on September 5 10, 2015, setting the deadline of February 29, 2016, for motions to amend 6 pleadings, ECF No. 20 at 2. However, all parties stipulate in writing to Plaintiff’s 7 request for leave to amend. ECF No. 42. 8 Rule 15(a) provides that, except in circumstances not present here, “a party 9 may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the 10 court's leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). When granting a motion for leave to 11 amend that arises after a scheduling order deadline has expired, the Court must 12 also address Rule 16, which provides that “[a] schedule [pursuant to a Rule 13 16(b)(1) scheduling order] may be modified only for good cause and with the 14 judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 15 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). When determining whether the party has 16 demonstrated good cause, the court “primarily considers the diligence of the party 17 seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 18 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it 19 cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 20 Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes). ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PLAINTIFF’S RELATED CASES AGAINST DEFENDANTS ~ 5 1 The Court grants the parties’ stipulated request to allow Plaintiff to file a 2 First Amended Complaint to Consolidate Claims. Pursuant to Rule 15(a), the 3 parties have consented in writing to Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend, ECF No. 4 42. Pursuant to Rule 16(b), the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good 5 cause to extend the Scheduling Order deadline. The parties moved for leave to 6 amend following the filing of the second action. Plaintiff could not have 7 reasonably met this Court’s deadline to amend in this case as the event giving rise 8 to the parties’ stipulated motion occurred after the motion to amend deadline 9 identified in the Scheduling Order had passed. That is, Plaintiff received the 10 EEOC’s right-to-sue letter on May 31, 2016, and promptly initiated a second 11 action in this Court thereafter on August 23, 2016, styled as, Patricia Lucio v. 12 Stemilt Growers, LLC, et al., case no. 2:16-CV-0303-TOR. ECF No. 42 at 2; see 13 also 2:16-CV-0303-TOR, ECF No. 1. Allowing amendment permits efficient and 14 expeditious resolution of all potential rights and obligations of the parties. 15 Accordingly, this Court grants the parties’ stipulated motion for leave to amend. 16 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 17 1. Stipulated Motion to Consolidate Plaintiff’s Related Cases Against 18 Defendants (1:15-CV-3082-TOR, ECF No. 42) is GRANTED. 19 2. The cases, Patricia Lucio v. Stemilt Growers, LLC, et al., case no. 1:15- 20 CV-3082-TOR, and Patricia Lucio v. Stemilt Growers, LLC, et al., case ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PLAINTIFF’S RELATED CASES AGAINST DEFENDANTS ~ 6 1 no. 2:16-CV-0303-TOR, are CONSOLIDATED as 1:15-CV-3082-TOR. 2 No further filings shall be made in 2:16-CV-0303-TOR, which file shall 3 be administratively closed. All pleadings therein maintain their legal 4 relevance. Any further pleadings received by the Clerk of Court for case 5 number 2:16-CV-0303-TOR shall be filed in this consolidated case, case 6 number 1:15-CV-3082-TOR. 7 8 9 10 11 3. Plaintiff is directed to promptly file her First Amended Complaint to Consolidate Claims. 4. The Amended Jury Trial Scheduling Order entered on June 30, 2016, remains in effect for consolidated case number 1:15-CV-3082-TOR. 5. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order, 12 provide copies to counsel, and administratively CLOSE 2:16-CV-0303- 13 TOR. 14 15 16 6. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel. DATED September 2, 2016. 17 18 THOMAS O. RICE Chief United States District Judge 19 20 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PLAINTIFF’S RELATED CASES AGAINST DEFENDANTS ~ 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
