Taggart v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. et al

Motion to Consolidate .

D. Or.August 22, 2017

Page 1 - Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate SCHUCK LAW, LLC 208 E 25th Street • Vancouver, WA 98663 Tel (360) 566-9243 • Fax (503) 575-2763 David A. Schuck, OSB 993564, WSB 37285 E-Mail: dschuck@wageclaim.org Karen A. Moore, OSB 0409225, WSB 42476 E-Mail: kmoore@wageclaim.org SCHUCK LAW, LLC Attorneys at Law 208 E 25th Street • Vancouver, WA 98663 Tel (360) 566-9243 • Fax (503) 575-2763 Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON TERRY A. TAGGART, an individual, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON, Defendants. Case No. 3:17-CV-00916-SI PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE LR 7-1 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1, Plaintiffs’ counsel has conferred in good faith with Defendant’s counsel by telephone before submitting this motion. Defendant does not oppose consolidation for discovery purposes, but does oppose consolidation for all other matters. MOTION Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and LR 42-3, Plaintiff moves this Court for an order consolidating the above captioned matter with Jeff Bantz v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., Case 3:17-cv-00916-SI Document 13 Filed 08/22/17 Page 1 of 5 Page 2 - Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate SCHUCK LAW, LLC 208 E 25th Street • Vancouver, WA 98663 Tel (360) 566-9243 • Fax (503) 575-2763 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Safeco Insurance Company of America, Safeco Insurance Company of Oregon, Oregon District Court case no. 6:17-CV-00966-MC for all purposes, including trial. As grounds therefore, Plaintiff states as follows; 1. Taggart Case and Bantz Case Plaintiff Taggart initiated this matter against Defendants in Oregon State Circuit Court on or about April 25, 2017 (“Taggart Case”). Defendants removed this case to the US District Court of Oregon on June 12, 2017. The Taggart Case is assigned to the Honorable Michael H. Simon. On June 20, 2017, Jeff Bantz filed a factually similar complaint against Defendants in the US District Court of Oregon (“Bantz Case”). The Bantz Case is assigned to the Honorable Michael J. McShane. 2. Common Facts and Legal Questions These cases involve common facts and legal questions. Both Taggart and Bantz alleged that they were not paid all regular wages under Oregon State wage and hour laws and all overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The defendants in each case are the same entities. Both Taggart and Bantz worked for Defendants in Oregon in the a similar job positions with similar job duties. In conferring on consolidation, Defendants did not oppose consolidation for discovery because both Taggart and Bantz reported to the “same manager” and were subject to the “same policies.” As such, consolidation for all purposes is reasonable because the same witnesses, policies, and documents will be relied on for each plaintiff’s claims. Further, wage and hour cases are often consolidated. See Brunozzi v. CCI, US District Court, case no. 3:14-CV-01131-MO consolidated to McCormick v. CCI, US District Court case no. 3:14-CV-01128-MO. Further, FLSA cases are often tried with multiple employees, because they can be certified as collective actions. 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b). Collective actions Case 3:17-cv-00916-SI Document 13 Filed 08/22/17 Page 2 of 5 Page 3 - Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate SCHUCK LAW, LLC 208 E 25th Street • Vancouver, WA 98663 Tel (360) 566-9243 • Fax (503) 575-2763 allow FLSA wage claims to go forward where by other similarly situated individuals opt-in to the case. Wage and hour cases under Oregon law are often consolidated or even certified as class actions, where the employees worked for the same manager, under the same policies, and in Oregon. See for example, Delgado v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, NA, Inc., 260 Or App 480, rev. denied 355 Or 380 (2014), and Migis v. AutoZone, 282 Or App 774 (2016), adhered to on reconsid., 286 Or App 357 (2017). Even without consolidation, Oregon State wage claims along with FLSA wage claims have been tried for multiple employees in a single case. In McElmurry v. US Bank, US District Court case no. 04-CV-00642-HA, the two plaintiffs brought wage claims under both the FLSA and Oregon State. The case proceeded through trial for both witnesses. The defendant was able to call the witnesses it deemed necessary for its defense, all within the one case. Counsel for the Parties along with most of the witnesses are in the Portland metropolitan area. Here, the Taggart and Bantz cases should be consolidated, not only because they allege the same claims under the FLSA and Oregon State law. Importantly, the facts, witnesses, and documents will all be the same through any dispositive motions and at trial. Defendants agree that discovery should be consolidated. 3. Similar Procedural Posture These cases are also similarly postured procedurally. In the Taggart Case the parties’ counsel have conducted a Rule 26 conference and are preparing the Initial Disclosures. The topics discussed in the Rule 26 conference and much of the information in the Initial Disclosures are applicable to both cases. The Parties have begun exchanging documents and discovery in the Taggart Case. Mr. Bantz is listed as a witness in the Taggart case. No trial date has been set in either case. The Parties counsel are continuing to confer Case 3:17-cv-00916-SI Document 13 Filed 08/22/17 Page 3 of 5 Page 4 - Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate SCHUCK LAW, LLC 208 E 25th Street • Vancouver, WA 98663 Tel (360) 566-9243 • Fax (503) 575-2763 to agree on deadlines for discovery, ADR reports, dispositive motions and trial. CONCLUSION These cases should be reassigned and managed by a single judicial officer because the issues presented in these two Cases are nearly identical. The issues in these Cases will require testimony from the same witnesses and consideration by the fact-finder of the same documents and other evidence. Failure to consolidate could lead to inconsistent outcomes. Consolidation would be a more efficient use of judicial resources as well as the Parties’ and witnesses’ time and resources. Plaintiff seeks consolidation for all further proceedings, including for trial. DATED: August 22, 2017. Schuck Law, LLC /s/ Karen A. Moore KAREN A. MOORE, Esquire OSB # 040922, WSB # 42476 (360) 566-9243 Attorney for Plaintiff Case 3:17-cv-00916-SI Document 13 Filed 08/22/17 Page 4 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Terry A. Taggart v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Safeco Insurance Company of America, Safeco Insurance Company of Oregon, case no. 17-CV-00916 I hereby certify that I caused to be served the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE upon: James Barrett Ogletree Deakins 222 SW Columbia St, Ste 1500 Portland, OR 97201 james.barrett@ogletreedeakins.com Attorney for Defendant by electronic mailing through the CM/ECF system, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d), on August 22, 2017. DATED: August 22, 2017. Schuck Law, LLC /s/ Karen A. Moore KAREN A. MOORE, Esquire OSB # 040922, WSB # 42476 (360) 566-9243 Attorney for Plaintiff Case 3:17-cv-00916-SI Document 13 Filed 08/22/17 Page 5 of 5