The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DERRICK ARNOLD, Case Nos. 1:20-cv-558, 1:22-cv-485
Plaintiff, McFarland, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
PAUL BROWN STADIUM LTD., et al, ORDER
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ joint motion to consolidate Arnold v. Paul
Brown Stadium Ltd., Case No. 1:20-cv-558 (S.D. Ohio) with Arnold v. Aramark American Food
Services LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-485 (S.D. Ohio) pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. (Doc. 39). In both lawsuits, plaintiff “seeks to hold Defendants liable for
negligence and personal injuries arising out of the same July 29, 2019 accident at Paul Brown
Stadium in Cincinnati, Ohio.” (Doc. 39 at PAGEID 147). For the reasons that follow, the
motion is granted.
I. Background
On May 14, 2020, plaintiff filed his first complaint against Paul Brown Stadium Ltd., The
Santangelo Group, Inc., and Aramark American Food Services, LLC in the Jefferson Circuit
Court of Kentucky. See Arnold v. Paul Brown Stadium Ltd., Case No. 1:20-cv-558 (Doc. 1).
Defendants removed the civil action to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky, which subsequently transferred the matter to the Southern District of Ohio pursuant
to the agreed order to transfer venue. (Docs. 9, 10).
Plaintiff’s second complaint was filed against Aramark American Food Services, LLC
and related Aramark entities and stems from the same July 29, 2019 incident at Paul Brown
Stadium in Cincinnati, Ohio giving rise to the first lawsuit. See Arnold v. Aramark Am. Food.
Servs., LLC, Case. No. 3:21-cv-554 (W.D. Ky.). On August 19, 2022, the Western District of
Kentucky transferred the matter to the Southern District of Ohio under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
pursuant to the agreed order to transfer venue. See Arnold v. Aramark Am. Food Servs., LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-485 (S.D. Ohio) (Doc. 10). 1
II. Standard of Review
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) authorizes consolidation of actions that involve a common question
of law or fact. The Rule 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The underlying purpose of Rule 42(a) is “to promote economy in the
administration of justice.” Guild Associates, Inc. v. Bio-Energy (Washington), LLC, 309 F.R.D.
436, 439 (S.D. Ohio 2015) (citations omitted). See Does No. 1 v. Springboro Cmty. City Sch.
Dist., No. 1:19-cv-785, 2022 WL 219368, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 25, 2022) (“The goal of
consolidation ‘is to administer the court’s business with expedition and economy while providing
justice to the parties.’”) (quoting Advey v. Celotex, Corp., 962 F.2d 1177, 1181 (6th Cir. 1992).
Consolidation under Rule 42(a) is a matter within the Court’s discretion. Guild Associates, 309
1 The parties initially sought to consolidate Arnold v. Aramark American Food Services, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-554
(W.D. Ky.) with Arnold v. Paul Brown Stadium Ltd., Case No. 1:20-cv-558 (S.D. Ohio). (Doc. 39). Since the filing
of the joint motion to consolidate, however, the district court in the Western District of Kentucky granted the
parties’ joint motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of Ohio in Case No. 3:21-cv-554. (See Doc. 41). The
case was thereafter transferred to this Court and assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-485. Accordingly, the Court construes
the pending motion to consolidate (Doc. 39) as a request to consolidate the instant matter, Case No. 1:20-cv-558,
with Case No. 1:22-cv-485.
F.R.D. at 440 (citing Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir. 1993)). In
determining whether consolidation is appropriate, the Court should consider whether the parties
would be prejudiced and whether jury confusion would result. /d. (citing Cantrell, 999 F.2d at
1011).
HI. Analysis
The Court finds that consolidation of these two cases is appropriate pursuant to Rule
42(a). Both cases involve the same or similar parties, arise out of the same alleged incident,
allege identical facts, and present similar issues of comparative negligence. (Doc. 39 at PAGEID
149-50). As stated by the parties in the joint motion to consolidate, “[b]oth actions have been
filed against identical defendants and arise out of an accident that occurred on July 29, 2019 at
Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati, Ohio. Plaintiff in both actions seek[s] to hold Defendants
liable for negligence and personal injuries arising out of July 29, 2019 accident.” (/d. at
PAGEID 149). It is apparent from the overlap of factual allegations and claims made in both
complaints that consolidating the two actions will avoid duplication of time and expense and
serve the interest of judicial economy. See Asamoah v. Amazon.com Servs., Inc., No. 2:20-cv-
3305, 2021 WL 3637730, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2021) (“Resolving the consolidated cases
together will help prevent possible confusion that may result from inconsistent decisions of
common factual issues, and it will conserve judicial resources.”). Accordingly, the parties’ joint
motion to consolidate Case No. 1:22-cv-485 with Case No. 1:20-cv-558 (Doc. 39) is
GRANTED. All future filings shall be made in Case No. 1:20-cv-558, the lower case number.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 12/27/2022 Heun Rethov
Karen L. Litkovitz
Chief United States Magistrate Judge