Sheehy et al v. Intermountain Health Care Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP
KERRI SHEEHY,
DEAN BEACOM, and
TAYLOR ARCHULETA, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH CARE INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
Susan Prose, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the court on the Parties’ Joint Motion to Consolidate (the
“Motion”). ECF No. 73. Plaintiffs and Defendant jointly request that this action, Sheehy v.
Intermountain Health Care, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP (“Sheehy”), be
consolidated with Huber v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
1:25-cv-02290-RMR-SBP (“Huber”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and
D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1. See generally, id. On April 7, 2026, the Parties filed a Stipulation
Consenting to Magistrate Judge’s Jurisdiction to Decide Joint Motion to Consolidate, in which
they consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for the sole
purpose of deciding and entering a final order on the Motion. ECF No. 74.
The court has reviewed the Motion, the record, and the applicable law, and finds that oral
argument would not materially assist in resolving the Motion. For the reasons set forth below,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP Document 76 filed 04/16/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 7

2
the Motion is respectfully GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Sheehy is a wage-and-hour class action brought by hourly, non-exempt employees of
Defendant Intermountain Health Care, Inc. who worked in Colorado hospitals. ECF No. 73 at 1.
Plaintiffs Kerri Sheehy, Dean Beacom, and Taylor Archuleta allege that Defendant violated the
Colorado Wage Claim Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 8-4-101, et seq., by failing to include Holiday
Premium Pay in the calculation of overtime rates and by excluding Holiday Premium Pay hours
from the count of hours worked toward overtime eligibility after forty hours in a workweek. ECF
No. 73 at 1–2.
The court has already certified Sheehy as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3). ECF No. 72 at 3. The certified Sheehy class is defined as:
All current and former hourly employees of Defendant who were classified by
Defendant as non-exempt and were paid on an hourly basis, excluding pharmacists,
who worked both overtime hours and hours eligible for holiday premium pay in the
same workweek, and who worked in Colorado between February 14, 2019, and
September 2, 2024.
ECF No. 73 at 3 (quoting ECF No. 67 at 10). In the later-filed related action, Huber, the named
plaintiff alleges that Intermountain failed to pay Ms. Huber and other hourly workers all wages
due because, among other things, Defendants failed to compensate time spent in COVID
screenings, failed to provide compensated rest breaks, and failed to compensate lunch breaks
interrupted by work. ECF No. 73 at 2 (citing Huber, ECF No. 56 at 8–14). The proposed Huber
class consists of:
All current and former employees of Defendants who were classified by Defendants
as non-exempt and were paid on an hourly basis, excluding pharmacists, and who
worked in Colorado, from June 12, 2019, until final judgment is entered.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP Document 76 filed 04/16/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 7

3
ECF No. 73 at 2 (quoting Huber, ECF No. 56 at 4).
The proposed Huber class thus encompasses essentially the same group of Colorado
hourly, non-exempt employees, excluding pharmacists, and the Sheehy Plaintiffs are themselves
members of the Huber putative class. ECF No. 73 at 2. Both actions are pending before the same
district judge and magistrate judge, and the same attorneys have been appointed interim class
counsel under Rule 23(g)(3) in both cases. ECF No. 73 at 3 (citing Huber, ECF No. 59 at 7). The
matters have already been consolidated for purposes of deciding prior intervention motions filed
by Fletcher Jones, and the Parties further represent that Sheehy and Huber are the subject of a
unified proposed settlement that will soon be presented to the court. ECF No. 73 at 2–3 (citing
Huber, ECF Nos. 44, 51).
On April 7, 2026, the Parties filed the instant Joint Motion to Consolidate Huber into the
lower-numbered Sheehy action pursuant to Rule 42 and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1. ECF No. 73 at
1, 3. That same day, the Parties filed a Stipulation Consenting to Magistrate Judge’s Jurisdiction
to Decide Joint Motion to Consolidate, in which they consented to the jurisdiction of the
undersigned under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for the limited purpose of deciding the Joint Motion to
Consolidate and entering a final order thereon. ECF No. 74 at 1–2.
ANALYSIS
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f actions before the
court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). “The decision whether to consolidate such actions is left to the sound
discretion of the trial court.” C.T. v. Liberal Sch. Dist., 562 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1346 (D. Kan.
2008) (citing Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978)). Rule 42(a) is intended “to
Case No. 1:25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP Document 76 filed 04/16/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 7

4
give the court broad discretion to decide how cases on its docket are to be tried so that the
business of the court may be dispatched with expedition and economy while providing justice to
the parties.” Breaux v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 220 F.R.D. 366, 367 (D. Colo. 2004) (quotation
omitted). Thus, in exercising this discretion, the court weighs both “judicial economy and
fairness to the parties.” MSPBO, LLC v. Adidas N. Am., Inc., No. 13-cv-02287-PAB-KMT, 2014
WL 349102, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 30, 2014) (citing Harris v. Illinois-California Express, Inc., 687
F.2d 1361, 1368 (10th Cir. 1982)).
The court agrees that consolidation is appropriate. Both Sheehy and Huber arise from
Defendant Intermountain’s alleged failure to pay all wages due to its hourly, non-exempt
employees who worked in Colorado, and both actions challenge Defendant’s pay practices under
Colorado wage-and-hour law for substantially overlapping time periods. ECF No. 73 at 1–3. In
Sheehy, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the Colorado Wage Claim Act by failing to
include Holiday Premium Pay in the calculation of overtime rates and by excluding Holiday
Premium Pay hours from the count of hours worked toward overtime eligibility after forty hours
in a workweek. ECF No. 73 at 1–2. In Huber, the named plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to
pay Ms. Huber and other hourly workers all wages due because, among other things, Defendant
did not compensate time spent in COVID screenings, failed to provide compensated rest breaks,
and failed to compensate lunch breaks interrupted by work. ECF No. 73 at 2 (citing Huber, ECF
No. 56 at 8–14).
The proposed Huber class encompasses essentially the same group of Colorado hourly,
non-exempt employees (excluding pharmacists), and the Sheehy Plaintiffs are themselves
members of the Huber putative class. ECF No. 73 at 2 (quoting Huber, ECF No. 56 at 4). These
Case No. 1:25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP Document 76 filed 04/16/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 7

5
factual and legal similarities between the cases suggest that discovery and motions practice will
overlap significantly, meaning that consolidation will facilitate a more efficient resolution of the
litigation for both the Parties and the court. ECF No. 73 at 2–3.
Moreover, there is no indication that any Party will be prejudiced by consolidation. Both
actions are pending before the same district judge and magistrate judge, the same attorneys have
been appointed interim class counsel under Rule 23(g)(3) in both cases, and the matters have
already been consolidated for purposes of deciding prior intervention motions filed by Fletcher
Jones. ECF No. 73 at 3 (citing Huber, ECF Nos. 44, 51, 59). The Parties further represent that
Sheehy and Huber are the subject of a unified proposed settlement that will soon be presented to
the court, and no Party opposes consolidation or has identified any inconvenience, expense, or
delay that would result from consolidation. ECF No. 73 at 1–3. The court is therefore persuaded
that these two cases share common questions of fact and law that warrant consolidation under
Rule 42(a).
Finally, the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1 are satisfied. The Joint Motion to
Consolidate was filed in Sheehy, the lower-numbered case, and the Parties filed a notice of filing
in Huber, and both actions are already assigned to the same district and magistrate judges. ECF
No. 73 at 1, 3. In addition, on April 7, 2026, the Parties filed a Stipulation Consenting to
Magistrate Judge’s Jurisdiction to Decide Joint Motion to Consolidate, thereby consenting under
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to the undersigned’s jurisdiction for the limited purpose of deciding the
Motion and entering a final order thereon. ECF No. 74 at 1–2. Under these circumstances,
consolidation of Huber into Sheehy under the Sheehy case number is warranted.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP Document 76 filed 04/16/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 7

6
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Joint Motion to Consolidate is granted, and Huber will be
consolidated into Sheehy under the Sheehy case number. Accordingly, it is ORDERED1 that:
1. 	The Parties’ Joint Motion to Consolidate (ECF No. 73) is GRANTED.
2. 	Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, the Clerk of
Court shall CONSOLIDATE this case with Huber v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02290-RMR-SBP.
3. 	The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to conform the docket to reflect that Huber v.
Intermountain Health Care, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02290-RMR-SBP, is
consolidated into the instant action and to administratively close Civil Action No.
1:25-cv-02290-RMR-SBP.
4. 	The Parties shall file all pleadings and papers in this action under the caption of: Civil
Action No. 1:25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP Consolidated With Civil Action No.
1:25-cv-02290-RMR-SBP.
5. 	All filings shall be made in Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP.
1 Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that within fourteen (14) days after
service of a Magistrate Judge’s order or recommendation, any party may serve and file written
objections with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), (b). Failure to make any such objection
will result in a waiver of the right to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s order or recommendation. See
Sinclair Wyo. Ref. Co. v. A & B Builders, Ltd., 989 F.3d 747, 783 (10th Cir. 2021) (firm waiver
rule applies to non-dispositive orders); but see Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1119,
1122 (10th Cir. 2005) (firm waiver rule does not apply when the interests of justice require
review, including when a “pro se litigant has not been informed of the time period for objecting
and the consequences of failing to object”).
Case No. 1:25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP Document 76 filed 04/16/26 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 7

7
6. 	The Parties are ORDERED to jointly contact Judge Prose’s Chambers within 21 days of the
date of this Order for the purpose of scheduling a Status Conference to discuss case
management in the consolidated action, including preparation of a schedule for any motion
for preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e).
DATED: April 16, 2026 	BY THE COURT:
______________________________
Susan Prose
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP Document 76 filed 04/16/26 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 7