Strong v. General Motors Flint Assembly et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BARBARA ANN STRONG,
Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS FLINT
ASSEMBLY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-12593
Honorable Shalina D. Kumar
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT UAW 598’S UNOPPOSED MOTION
TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
(ECF NO. 45)
Plaintiff Barbara Ann Strong, proceeding pro se, sues Defendants
General Motors Flint Assembly and UAW 598 for various employment-
based claims. ECF No. 1. The Honorable Shalina D. Kumar referred the
case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
ECF No. 6. UAW moves to consolidate this case with Case No. 25-12790
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42. ECF No. 45. Strong agrees that
the cases should be consolidated. ECF No. 58.
“The underlying purpose of Rule 42 is to promote economy in the
administration of justice.” 	Guild Assocs., Inc. v. Bio-Energy (Washington),
LLC, 309 F.R.D. 436, 439 (S.D. Ohio 2015). Under Rule 42(a), if actions
Case 4:25-cv-12593-SDK-EAS ECF No. 68, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 1 of 3

2
involve “a common question of law or fact,” a 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.” But a
“court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues [or]
claims” because of “convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and
economize,” while preserving the right to a jury trial. Rule 42(b).
“[Q]uestions of law and fact need not be identical,” and “Rule 42 gives the
Court discretion to consolidate as long as there are some common
questions of law or fact.” 	Guild Assocs., 309 F.R.D. at 440. Consolidation
is a matter within the Court’s discretion. 	Id.
This case should be consolidated with Case No. 25-12790, which
Strong originally filed in August 2025, in Genesee County Circuit Court
against GM and UAW. 	Strong v. Gen. Motors Flint Assembly, No. 25-
12790, Ex. A to Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.11-14 (E.D. Mich.
Sept. 4, 2025). Strong filed this action the same month, and GM removed
the state-court case to this Court in September 2025. Both cases are
employment actions arising from Strong’s January 2025 workplace injury
and allegedly wrongful termination. And they appear to advance similar
causes of action. Thus, the cases involve common questions of law and
fact and should be consolidated.
Case 4:25-cv-12593-SDK-EAS ECF No. 68, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 2 of 3

3
UAW’s motion to consolidate is thus GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: October 24, 2025
NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file
objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. 	“When an objection is filed to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.” 	E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served on
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 24, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 4:25-cv-12593-SDK-EAS ECF No. 68, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 3 of 3