Dyer v. M&M Asphalt Maintenance Inc.
6:15-cv-01512
M.D. Fla.Apr 7, 2016Background
- Two related FLSA actions: Dyer I (wage/overtime claims) and Dyer II (FLSA retaliation claims) filed within three months and sharing many overlapping parties and facts.
- Plaintiffs in Dyer II allege defendants retaliated (reduced hours, terminations, department closure) after service of the Dyer I complaint.
- Both actions involve the same defendant entities and overlapping plaintiffs; multiple opt-ins exist in both matters.
- Defendants requested consolidation to avoid duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings; Plaintiffs opposed, citing prejudice and potential jury confusion.
- Court considered Rule 42(a) factors (commonality, efficiency, prejudice) and found factual overlap sufficient to consolidate for discovery but noted trial issues differ because wage and retaliation claims require different elements and damages.
- Recommendation: consolidate the cases only through the conclusion of discovery; subsequent filings to be made in Dyer I docket, with trial consolidation to be reconsidered after discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dyer I (wage) and Dyer II (retaliation) involve common law/fact for consolidation | Cases involve different legal issues (wage vs. retaliation); consolidation will cause delay, prejudice, jury confusion | Both arise from same operative facts, same FLSA statute, same parties; consolidation avoids duplication and inconsistent rulings | Common factual overlap exists; consolidation appropriate for discovery only |
| Whether FLSA wage and FLSA retaliation claims can be consolidated | Relied on cases distinguishing wage claims from other statutes (e.g., Title VII) to argue against consolidation | No legal bar to consolidating FLSA wage and FLSA retaliation claims; prior courts have consolidated such FLSA claims | No per se rule preventing consolidation; courts may consolidate when commonality and lack of prejudice exist |
| Whether consolidation would unduly prejudice Dyer I litigants | Consolidation would interfere with existing discovery limits and cause jury confusion by mixing wage and retaliation evidence | Cases are at similar early stages; consolidation will streamline discovery with minimal prejudice | No undue prejudice found given early posture; limiting instructions and case management can mitigate confusion |
| Scope/duration of consolidation | Plaintiffs sought no consolidation | Defendants sought full consolidation through trial | Consolidation limited to discovery period; trial consolidation deferred until after discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir.) (Rule 42(a) reflects court s managerial docket power and factors for consolidation)
- In re Air Crash Disaster at Fla. Everglades, 549 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir.) (discussing court s authority to manage docket and consolidate)
- Arnold v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186 (4th Cir.) (factors for weighing consolidation prejudice vs. efficiency)
- Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 135 F.3d 750 (11th Cir.) (consolidation for convenience and economy of administration)
- Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479 (U.S.) (historical support for consolidation as administrative convenience)
- Soler v. G & U, Inc., 477 F. Supp. 102 (S.D.N.Y.) (consolidating matters through discovery as permissible practice)
- Equity Lifestyle Prop., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir.) (court s authority under Rule 16(b) to manage docket and enforce schedules)