SELLERS et al v. FOUR-COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. et al, No. 1:2014cv00422 - Document 105 (M.D.N.C. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 04/20/2015; RECOMMENDS that the United States' motion to consolidate (Docket Entry 81 ) be GRANTED. The undersigned RECOMMENDS that the cases be consolidated for discovery and trial. Associated Cases: 1:14-cv-00422-CCE-JLW, 1:14-cv-01032-CCE-JLW. (Garland, Leah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
SELLERS et al v. FOUR-COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. et al Doc. 105 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA KHRISTEN SELLERS, et al., ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, V. ) SOUTHE,ASTERN COMMUNITY AND F'AMILY SERVICES, INC., JOHN ìØESLEY, and ERIC PENDER, 1,:1,4CY422 ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) UNITED STATES OF' AME,RICA, Plaintiff, V JOHN ìøE,SLEY, ERIC PENDER, and S OUTHE,\STE,RN C OMMUNITY AND FAMILY SERVICE,S, INC., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1,:1,4CY1,032 ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Court on the United States'Motion to Consolidate Related Cases and Stay Discovery in Seller¡ u. Soatheastem Communitl and Famiþ Services. (Docket Entty 81.¡r The motion has been fully bdefed and the matter is ripe for disposition. Fot the reasons that follo% the undersigned recommends that the motion be gtanted. 1 All docket citations refer to the docket for Sellers u. Se. Cmfl. dz trarniþ Serus., Inc.,1.:1.4CY422, unless otherwise noted. Dockets.Justia.com I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs I(hristen Sellers, Alfreda Crowder, and Latoya Hasty ("Private Plaintiffs") filed the complaint in this action against Southeastern Community and Family Services, Inc., John \X/esley, and Eric Pendet on Septembet 1,0, 201,2 in North Carohna state court. (Compl. at 1, Docket Entry 4.) The action was removed ftom state court to this Coutt on May 22,201.4. (Jaa Docket Entry 1.) Ptivate Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, fìled on October 21., 2014, includes twelve plaintiffs, and alleges violations Housing Act ("FHA") in addition to state law causes On Decembet 10, 201,4, of the federal Fait of ac:!on3 (Compl., Docket Entty 62.) the United States fìled sult against the same Defendants, alleging violations of the FHA arising ftom the sme or similar conduct by Defendants. United State: u. íYeiley 1,:1,4CY1032, (Jae Compl., Docket Entry 1 (À{.D.N.C.).) The United States now moves to consolidate the two cases fot discovery and trial. (lvlot. to Consolidate, Docket Entry 81.) Additionally, the United States requests a stay in discovery to allow all parties to confer about a new discovery schedule. (Gov't's Mem. at 2, Docket Entry 82.) Pnvate Plaintiffs join the United States'motion to consolidate. pocket Entry 83.) Defendants do not oppose consolidation for discovery and do not object to stay of discovery. (Defs.' Mem. at 2, Docket Entry 93.) Defendants do a oppose consolidation of the cases for ttial. (Id.) II. DISCUSSION Defendants make thtee atguments cases in opposition to the motion to consolidate the for ttial. Fitst, Defendants atgue thata consolidated trial will ptejudice them because it 2 Pdvate Plaintiffs have since filed a Fourth mended Complaint (Docket E.rt y 99), which includes fifteen plaintiffs and alleges violations of the FHA in addition to state law claims. 2 will require an unwarranted aggregation of evidence. (d. at 3-6.) Next, they argue that consolidation will provide Private Plaintiffs with unwaranted ctedibility because of the Government's involvement. (Id. at 6-9.) Finally, Defendants argue that consolidation could tesult in increased attorney's fees paid to Private Plaintiffs should Ptivate Plaintiffs ptevail. (Id. at 9-10.) Each of these arguments is unpersuasive. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Ptoce dure 42, a cofiunon question of fact ot law, the coutt m y Civ. P. 42(a). Once the motion to "[i]f actions before the court involve .. . consolidate the actions . . . ." Fed. R. consolidate "meet[s] the threshold requitement of involving 'a common question of law or fact'1,]. . . whethet to grant the motion becomes an issue of judicial discretion." Pari¡eaa u. Anod1ne Healthcare Mgnt.,1zr., No. Civ. A. 3:04-CV- 630,2006 WL 325379, at*'1. CX/.D.N.C. Feb. 9,2006) (citing Arwold u. Eastem Air Unes,681. F.2d1.86,1,93 (4thCk. 1,982)). The court has broad discretion to consolidate cases under Rule 42(a) . A/S Ladwig Mowincþ.le¡ Rederi u. Tidewater Con¡t. Co., 559 F.2d 928, 933 (4th Cu. 1,977). exercising its discretion in such rcgard, the coutt should we€h the dsk of prejudice and possible confusion versus the possibility of inconsistent adjudication of common factual and legal issues, the butden on the parties, witnesses, and iudicial resources by multiple lawsuits, the length of time tequited to try multiple suits versus a single suit, and the relative expense tequired for multiple suits versus a single suit. In In re Cree, Inc., Sec. Litig.,219 F'.R.D.369,371 (À4.D.N.C. 2003) (citing Amold,681, F.2d at 1,93). Here, the moving parties have met the thteshold requirement of Rule 42. Private Plaintiffs' case and the United States' case atise out of the same alleged events, namely J "sexual harassment, sexual assault, and extottion for Plaintiffs were seeking to obtain low-income housing acts of retaliation and intimidation . . . at 4-5, United States ." sexual acts benefits by Defendants while as well as Defendants' Compl. at2, Docket Etrtty 623; (Jøe accord Compl. u. l%esley 1:14CN1,032, Docket E.rtty 1 (À4.D.N.C.).) Defendants concede that the cases "involve allegations Pender." (Defs.' Mem. ^t of similar conduct by Defendants ìTesley and 4.) Further, both Private Plaintiffs and the United States allege vioiations of the fedetal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. S 3601, et. seq. (Jee Compl. at 18, Docket Entry 62; Compl. at 7, Unired State: u. Il/esley 1,:1,4CY7032, Docket Entry 1 04.D.N.C.).) Resolving these cases will turn on common issues of facts and law, thetefote the moving parties have met the thteshold requirement of Rule 42. Defendants argue that consolidation because of an ":unw^ft^flted aggregation of the cases for trial will lead to of evidence." (Defs.' Mem. ^t 3.) ptejudice Defendants specifically take issue with the possibility that the "numbet of 'aggneved petsons' in the DOJ case is significantly greaLtet than the number Defendants could be "unfairly prejudiced of piaintiffs in the Sellers case," and that by a single jury hearing evidence relating to multiple untelated allegations and losing its ability to fafuly apportion any liability." (Id. at 5.) These arguments are unpersuasive. The fact that there ^Íe ^ latge number of "aggtieved persons" alleging violations of their civil rights does not present a risk of undue prejudice to Defendants. The Sellers action alrcady has twelve plaintiffs, having been 3 Plaintiffs'Fourth Amended Complaint alleges the same. (Jae Fouth Am. Compl. at2, Docket Entry 99.) 4 amended three times to add addit-ional paties.a (See Compl., Docket Entty 62.) -,\s Private Plaintiffs cortectly point out, the existence of numerous witnesses to Defendants' alleged actions is not grounds for objection. (Ptivate Pls.' Reply at 4, Docket Entry 95.) Even cases were witnesses if the not consoüdated, Ptivate Plaintiffs would ìikely be able to call the Government's to testi$r in theit action. SeeFed. R. Evid. 415 (allowing a court,in a civil case involving sexual assault, to admit evidence of "any othet sexual assault"). Additionally, at trtal, a jury will be tesponsible for headng evidence telating to multiple allegations and be required to apportion liability amongst Private Plaintiffs. \)Øhile the United States may bring its action on behalf of a larger class than Ptivate Plaintiffs, thete is no undue prejudice resulting from additional witnesses that would, on balance, outweigh the efficiencies gained ftom holding a single tial. Therefote, this argument fails. Next, Defendants argue that consolidation will ptovide Private Plaintiffs with arttftcially inflated ctedibility because of the Government's involvement. (Defs.' Mem. at 6.) Defendants cite no authodty in support of their argument. Consolidation between government and pdvate actions is not an infrequent occurrence.5 Any tisk to Defendants from the Government's involvement is miniscule when weighted against the butden on the parties, witnesses, and the Court ftom holding sepatate trials. Therefore, this argument is unpetsuasive. o The same actions are present in the Fourth Amended Complaint, which adds three additional plaintiffs. (Jea Docket Entry 99.) 5 See, e.g.,Holland a.N.J.Dept. of Corr., Civ.,A.. Nos. 93-1683,94-2391, and94-3087,7994 \øL 507801, at x7 P.NJ. Sept. 74, 1994); ATlanric Søns I-,ega/ Foand., Inc. u. Koch Refning C0,,681, F. Supp. 609, 615 @. Minn. 1988); Sierra Club a. Coco-Cola Corþ.,673 F. Supp. 1555, 1556 (À4.D. Fla. 1987). 5 Finally, Defendants argue that consol-idation could lead to incteased attotney's fees fot Private Plaintiffs should Private Plaintiffs ptevail. (Defs.' Mem. Defendants, "[c]onsolidation of the trials of significandy longer pre-trial and sepatately," resulting in tral ^t 9-1,0.) Accotding to these two matters likely proceedings than will result in if the two matters were tried increased damages should Ptivate Plaintiffs win. (Id. at 9.) This assertion is putely speculative, both as to the imposition of attotney's fees, which ate gtanted at the coutt's disctetion (:ee 42 U.S.C. $ 3613(c)(2)), and as to the outcome of the cases. Such speculative prejudice does not outweigh any efficiency gained ftom consolidating the tials. Futthet, as Ptivate Plaintiffs dghtly point out, it is equally likely that pteparing Pdvate Plaintiffs' clients for a single trial, f^thü than two trials States (as they may be called by the United if the cases re not consolidated) would result in lower attotney's fees. Therefore this atgument fails. III. CONCLUSION For the resons stated above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the United Stares' motion to consolidate (Docket Entry 81) be RECOMMENDS that the cases be consolidated GRANTED. The undersigned for discovery and trial.6 w stef States Magistrate Judge ,{.pdl ,201.5 Durham, North Carolina 6 To the extent the United States requests that discovery in the Sellers case be stayed, the Coutt notes that the discovery deadline has been extended to ninety days after the resolution of the pending motion. (Jae Order, Docket Entry 104.) 6
]]>
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.
