Graziano v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation

Background

Antonio Graziano, Omar Santana, Errol Cooper, and Asjad Ali each filed a putative class action against Wagner Spray Tech Corporation. The complaints assert substantially similar products-liability claims arising from Wagner’s recall of certain power steamer products. The cases were assigned separate case numbers: 26-cv-2073, 26-cv-2097, 26-cv-2160, and 26-cv-2568.

The plaintiffs moved to consolidate the cases, and the parties filed joint stipulations to consolidate them. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 permits consolidation when cases share common questions of law or fact. The court explained that consolidation may promote judicial economy and avoid unnecessary cost or delay, and that district courts have substantial discretion in making that decision.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the four actions arose from the same underlying factual event, asserted overlapping causes of action, and sought to represent the same class of individuals. The court therefore concluded that the actions involved common questions of law and fact and that consolidation was appropriate.

The parties’ stipulation stated that consolidation was without prejudice to Wagner’s arguments on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or to Wagner’s opposition to class certification. The consolidation order therefore did not resolve those issues.

Order

Judge Laura M. Provinzino granted the plaintiffs’ motions for consolidation and the parties’ stipulations to consolidate. Santana v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation, No. 26-cv-2097; Cooper v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation, No. 26-cv-2160; and Ali v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation, No. 26-cv-2568 were consolidated for all purposes with the first-filed case, Graziano v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation, No. 26-cv-2073. The consolidated matter is captioned “In re Wagner Spray Tech Corporation Products Liability Litigation.”

The order directs that future filings be submitted in the consolidated case under that caption. It also permits parties to identify later cases that may be related and states that later cases involving the same or similar operative facts may be consolidated after the court determines that consolidation is appropriate.

Within seven days, the plaintiffs must confer about a leadership structure 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 must file a consolidated class-action complaint. Wagner must then file an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 45 days after that complaint is filed. The order provides additional deadlines for any Rule 12 motion, amendment, response, and reply. The deadlines may be changed only for good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b).