Dillard v. Inmate Services Corporation

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTINA HALL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:18-cv-235-DPM

INMATE SERVICES CORPORATION and RANDY CAGLE, JR. DEFENDANTS

DAVID DILLARD and NICOLAS WILLIAMS PLAINTIFFS

v. No. 2:19-cv-150-DPM

INMATE SERVICES CORPORATION and RANDY CAGLE, JR. DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. A wage dispute between Inmate Services and current and former extradition agents has generated two lawsuits. The lawyers in each case are the same. Common questions of fact and law exist. The Court therefore consolidates the cases to handle them most efficiently. FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a)(2). We’ll see, in due course, if more than one trial is needed. FED. R. CIV. P. 42(b). All future filings should be made in No. 3:18-cv-235-DPM, the lead case, with the joint style used in this Order. The parties’ causes of action are not merged, though; and a separate judgment will be entered when each matter is resolved. Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1127 (2018). 2. The Final Scheduling Order in No. 2:19-cv-150-DPM, Doc. 11, is vacated. Both cases will proceed under the Third Amended Final Scheduling Order in No. 3:18-cv-235-DPM, Doc. 69. 3. The Court grants the parties’ joint request and refers the case to Magistrate Judge Patricia Harris to conduct a settlement conference at her convenience by 18 December 2020. So Ordered.

J ar COLO A D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 10 November 2020

~2-