United States District Court, E.D. Washington
MICHAEL L. LOGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, and GREGORY NEAL GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO
O. RICE Chief United States District Judge.
THE COURT is Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's
Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 28). Union
Pacific Railroad Company requests the court consolidate this
case, Logan v. Union Pacific Railroad Company,
2:17-CV-0394-TOR, with another action pending before this
Court, Gonzales v. BNSF Railway Company,
4:17-CV-5193-TOR. In Gonzales, BNSF Railway filed an
identical Unopposed Motion to Consolidate. 4:17-CV-5193-TOR,
ECF No. 27. These matters were submitted for consideration
without oral argument. The Court-having reviewed the
briefing, the record, and files therein-is fully informed. As
discussed below, the motions (ECF Nos. 28 and 27,
respectively) are GRANTED.
early November 2017, Plaintiffs Michael Logan and Gregory
Gonzales filed complaints in Washington Superior Court on
behalf of themselves and putative classes of current and
former employees from Union Pacific and BNSF, respectively.
Logan, ECF No. 1-1 at ¶ 1; Gonzales,
ECF No. 1-1 at ¶ 1. In late November 2017, both cases
were removed to this Court. See Logan, ECF No. 1-1;
Gonzales, ECF No. 1-1. In both cases, Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants failed to pay employees for rest
periods in violation of section 296-126-092(4) of the
Washington Administrative Code and that these violations were
willful or intentional pursuant to RCW 49.52.050, 070.
Logan, ECF No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 24-37;
Gonzales, ECF No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 25-38.
Plaintiffs assert these claims individually and on behalf of
purported classes of similarly situated employees.
Logan, ECF No. 1-1 at ¶ 15; Gonzales,
ECF No. 1-1 at ¶ 16.
response to Plaintiffs' claims and allegations,
Defendants both argue that Washington's laws and
regulations pertaining to rest periods do not apply to
railroad employees because they are preempted by federal law.
Logan, ECF No. 3 at 6-7; Gonzales, ECF No.
2 at 8-9.
Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) governs consolidation in
federal courts, and provides:
If actions before the court involve a common question of law
or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or
all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the
actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary
cost or delay.
Civ. P. 42(a). “The district court has broad discretion
under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same
district.” Inv'rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist.
Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir.
1989). In determining whether to consolidate cases, the court
should “weigh the interest of judicial convenience
against the potential for delay, confusion and
prejudice.” Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682
F.Supp.2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
Court finds that consolidation of the two cases is
appropriate. As the parties in Logan and
Gonzales have stipulated - and as the pleadings
amply demonstrate - both cases “involve identical
issues of law and virtually identical issues of fact[,
]” Logan, ECF No. 28 at 4; Gonzales,
ECF No. 27 at 2, which satisfies requirements of Rule 42. The
Court finds Consolidation will save judicial resources
without causing any potential delay, confusion or prejudice
to the parties. Indeed, consolidation will favor the parties
and they have stipulated to the consolidation. Finally,
consolidation presents no conflicts of interest, and
resolution of the cases together will ensure consistency in
the findings and conclusions of the Court.
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Unopposed
Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 28) is
Defendant BNSF Railway Company's Unopposed Motion to
Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED.
cases of Logan v. Union Pacific Railroad Company,
2:17-CV-0394-TOR and Gonzales v. BNSF Railway
Company, 4:17-CV-5193-TOR are
CONSOLIDATED as 2:17-CV-0394-TOR. No further
filings shall be made in 4:17-CV-5193-TOR, which file shall
be administratively closed. All pleadings therein maintain
their legal relevance. Any further pleadings received by the
Clerk of Court for case number 4:17-CV-5193-TOR shall be
filed in this consolidated case, case ...