Graziano v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation

Background

Antonio Graziano, Omar Santana, Errol Cooper, and Asjad Ali each brought a proposed class action against Wagner Spray Tech Corporation. The cases asserted product-liability claims arising from Wagner’s recall of certain power steamer products. The plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate, and the parties submitted stipulations supporting consolidation.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 allows a court to combine cases that share common questions of law or fact. The court explained that consolidation may avoid unnecessary cost or delay and promote efficient use of judicial resources. It found consolidation appropriate because the four cases arose from the same underlying recall, asserted substantively similar and overlapping causes of action, and sought to represent the same class of individuals.

The parties’ stipulation stated that consolidation would not affect Wagner’s arguments on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or its arguments concerning class certification. The order therefore addressed case management rather than deciding whether the plaintiffs’ claims were legally valid or whether a class should be certified.

Order

The court granted the consolidation motions filed by Graziano, Santana, and Cooper and granted the parties’ stipulations to consolidate the actions. It consolidated the Santana, Cooper, and Ali cases for all purposes with the first-filed Graziano case, No. 26-cv-2073. The Clerk was directed to change the caption to “In re Wagner Spray Tech Corporation Products Liability Litigation,” and all future filings in the consolidated action must use that caption and docket number.

The order also allowed parties to file a notice of a related action when they believe another case should be consolidated. Any later case in the District of Minnesota arising from the same or similar operative facts may be consolidated after the court determines that consolidation is appropriate.

Within seven days, the plaintiffs had to confer about leadership and file a motion to appoint interim class counsel under Rule 23(g). Within 30 days after an order appointing interim class counsel, the plaintiffs had to file a consolidated class-action complaint. Wagner then had 45 days to file an answer or a motion under Rule 12. The order set additional deadlines for any Rule 12 motion, amended complaint, responses, and replies. The deadlines could be changed only upon a showing of good cause under Rule 6(b).