Foli v. Railroad
Teko Foli v. Metro-North Railroad, Craig Gustvason, Lisa Potthast, Jeffrey Weston, and John Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-09355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Teko Foli v. Metro-North Railroad, Judge Roman allowed limited discovery consolidation but not consolidation for all purposes.
Teko Foli and the defendants in both related actions—Metro-North Railroad, Craig Gustvason, Lisa Potthast, Jeffrey Weston, and John Doe—are affected by the limited consolidation for discovery, the vacated stays, and the schedules for possible dismissal motions.
What happened
In Teko Foli v. Metro-North Railroad, Teko Foli, representing himself, brought two related lawsuits alleging discrimination and retaliation involving Metro-North Railroad and its employees. The first lawsuit concerned his employment with Metro-North; the second concerned alleged retaliation after that employment and during his later employment with Ikos Consulting, Inc.
Foli asked the court to combine the two lawsuits. The defendants argued that the cases should be combined only for discovery because their different time periods could cause confusion, unfairness, and inefficiency. The court found overlapping parties and facts, including allegations about remarks concerning identity theft, immigration issues, Foli’s resume, and his nationality.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the motion to consolidate for the limited purpose of discovery and stated that Foli could later seek consolidation for all purposes after discovery. The court also vacated previously entered stays and granted the defendants permission to seek dismissal in both lawsuits under separate schedules.
The detailed version
- Foli v. Railroad · No. 7:24-cv-09355
- Nelson Roman
- Dec. 3, 2025
Background
Teko Foli, proceeding without a lawyer, filed two related actions. In Action No. 1, filed on July 8, 2024, Foli alleged that Metro-North Railroad and its employees Craig Gustvason, Lisa Potthast, Jeffrey Weston, and John Doe discriminated and retaliated against him based on race and national origin in connection with his employment with Metro-North. He asserted claims under federal civil-rights statutes, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and New York and New Jersey law.
Foli filed Action No. 2 on December 9, 2024. He alleged retaliation involving events after his employment with Metro-North and continuing during his employment with Ikos Consulting, Inc., which the opinion describes as an unaffiliated entity. Foli said that a 90-day deadline connected to a notice of the right to sue regarding his December 2023 charge required him to file the claims in a second action.
Motion to Consolidate
Foli moved to consolidate Action No. 2 with Action No. 1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits consolidation when actions involve a common question of law or fact. The court explained that consolidation decisions consider convenience, judicial economy, cost reduction, fairness, and the risk of prejudice or confusion.
The defendants opposed consolidation beyond discovery. They argued that the cases involved substantially different time periods and that consolidating them for all purposes, including trial, could create confusion, prejudice, and inefficiency. They also said they intended to seek permission to file motions to dismiss and expected that many claims, including all of Action No. 2, would likely be dismissed.
Court’s Analysis
The court found significant similarities and overlaps between the actions, including the same parties and facts. The court identified allegations in both actions concerning remarks about identity theft and immigration issues, accusations related to Foli’s resume, and racist remarks about his nationality. The court concluded that combining the actions for discovery would avoid duplication, clarify Foli’s claims, and promote efficient handling of the cases.
The court did not consolidate the actions for all purposes at that time because the cases involved substantially different time periods and broader consolidation could create confusion. The defendants conceded that consolidation for the limited purpose of discovery was appropriate.
Disposition
The court granted Foli’s motion to consolidate Action No. 1, No. 24-CV-05148, and Action No. 2, No. 24-CV-09355, for the limited purpose of discovery. The order states that this grant was without prejudice to Foli seeking consolidation for all purposes after discovery. The court also deemed vacated the stays previously entered in both actions.
The court granted the defendants’ applications for permission to file motions to dismiss in both actions and set separate service, opposition, reply, and filing schedules. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the consolidation motions in both actions. Judge Nelson S. Roman entered the order on December 3, 2025.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.