Garrison Southfield Park LLC v. Closed Loop Refining and Recovery, Inc., 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD

Two related federal suits: Garrison Southfield Park LLC v. Closed Loop (17-CV-783) filed Sept. 5, 2017, and Olymbec USA LLC v. Closed Loop (19-CV-1041) filed Mar. 20, 2019; both seek declaratory relief, CERCLA cost recovery, and common-law damages for environmental contamination at warehouse properties.
Court related the cases on April 17, 2019.
Both plaintiffs moved to consolidate the two cases for all purposes (fact discovery, expert discovery, dispositive motions, and trial).
The Kuusakoski defendants partially opposed consolidation, consenting to consolidation for pretrial fact discovery but arguing consolidation beyond that (expert discovery, dispositive motions, trial) would be premature and potentially prejudicial given factual differences among facilities, differing cleanup facts, and multiple defendants affecting CERCLA allocation issues.
The court analyzed consolidation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and applicable Sixth Circuit discretion, emphasizing economy and avoidance of prejudice.
Holding: the court granted consolidation only for fact discovery and denied consolidation beyond fact discovery without prejudice pending completion of fact discovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the two cases should be consolidated under Rule 42(a)	Consolidate for all purposes to promote efficiency and economy	Oppose full consolidation as premature and potentially prejudicial	Consolidation granted for fact discovery only; full consolidation denied without prejudice
Scope of consolidation (fact discovery v. expert/dispositive/trial)	All-purpose consolidation (fact, expert, motions, trial)	Agree to fact discovery consolidation only; oppose expert/dispositive/trial consolidation pending facts	Limited consolidation to fact discovery; further consolidation deferred until after fact discovery
Prematurity of consolidating expert discovery/trial issues	Early consolidation saves resources and avoids duplicative proceedings	Significant factual differences among facilities and defendants may cause unfair prejudice if fully consolidated now	Court found insufficient factual development to determine undue prejudice; denied full consolidation for now
Risk of prejudice from consolidation	Plaintiffs: common questions of law/fact predominate; manageable differences	Defendants: differing cleanups and defendant relationships affect CERCLA liability allocation	Court accepted defendants' concern as plausible and preserved rights by denying further consolidation without prejudice pending fact discovery

Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007 (6th Cir. 1993) (district courts have broad discretion to consolidate cases under Rule 42)
Advey v. Celotex Corp., 962 F.2d 1177 (6th Cir. 1992) (consolidation should promote expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties)