Wilson v. HGC, Inc.
3:16-cv-00064
D. Or.Aug 18, 2016Background
- Two related suits against HGC, Inc.: the Wilson Plaintiffs (trustees of benefit trusts) sued to enforce CBA, compel audits, and collect unpaid contributions under LMRA and ERISA; Local 701 (the union) sued to compel arbitration of a grievance under Section 301 of the LMRA.
- Dispute centers on whether HGC validly terminated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective May 2, 2014 (termination date disputed), and whether post-termination contribution/audit obligations remain.
- Wilson Plaintiffs allege HGC refused audits and stopped contributions after May 2, 2014; seek audit, monetary relief, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
- Local 701 alleges HGC refused to arbitrate a grievance about termination and bargaining and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to compel arbitration and attorneys’ fees.
- HGC moved to consolidate the two cases for efficiency; plaintiffs opposed consolidation but did not oppose coordinating discovery; the later-filed case was transferred to the judge presiding over the earlier case.
- Court found common questions of law/fact sufficient for Rule 42(a) coordination but denied full consolidation, ordering coordinated joint discovery, a combined scheduling proposal, and mutual leave to appear as interested parties in the companion case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two cases should be consolidated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2) | Wilson and Local 701: cases involve different substantive claims and parties; consolidation would cause inefficiency or prejudice | HGC: common central question — when did contractual obligations cease — so full consolidation will streamline discovery and briefing | Denied: common issues exist but full consolidation unnecessary; risk of inefficiency or prejudice can be avoided by less drastic coordination measures |
| Whether pretrial discovery and briefing should be coordinated | Plaintiffs: opposed full consolidation but did not oppose coordinated discovery; want to preserve separate case character | HGC: sought consolidation primarily to synchronize discovery and summary judgment; alternatively requested joint deposition schedule/protective order | Granted in part: all depositions and other discovery to be jointly conducted on same schedule and captions, unless parties agree otherwise |
| Whether the Court should enter alternative protective/order coordinating proceedings if consolidation denied | Plaintiffs: no opposition to coordinated scheduling/depositions | HGC: requested protective order/deposition scheduling as fallback | Granted: Court ordered parties to confer and jointly file a proposed scheduling and case management order; separate positions allowed if no agreement |
| Whether parties should be allowed to participate in the companion case as interested parties | N/A (procedural coordination issue) | HGC supported coordination to avoid inconsistent rulings | Granted: Local 701 may appear as an "interested party" in Wilson; Wilson Plaintiffs may appear as an "interested party" in Local 701 |
Key Cases Cited
- E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 1998) (consolidation inappropriate if it would lead to inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice)
- Enterprise Bank v. Saettele, 21 F.3d 233 (8th Cir. 1994) (requirement of common question of law or fact for consolidation)
- Barraford v. T & N Ltd., 778 F.3d 258 (1st Cir. 2015) (consolidation may be limited to pretrial matters)
- Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing whether consolidated actions retain separate character or become merged)