Jones v. Wolverine Fuels LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
TONY JONES and JEFFERSON
MANNING, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WOLVERINE FUELS, LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE
2:25-cv-00345-RJS-JCB
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett
TIMOTHY GOINS, individually and for
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WOLVERINE FUELS, LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE
2:25-cv-00767-RJS-DBP
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
Before the court is Defendant Wolverine Fuels, LLC’s Motion to Consolidate.1 Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and DUCivR 42-1, Wolverine moves to consolidate into
Jones v. Wolverine Fuels, Case No. 2:25-cv-00345-RJS-JCB (Jones), a later-filed case between
similar parties—Goins v. Wolverine Fuels, Case No. 2:25-cv-00767-RJS-DBP (Goins). The
Goins Plaintiffs oppose the Motion.2 For the reasons explained below, the Motion to
Consolidate is DENIED.
1 Jones Action, Dkt. 29, Motion to Consolidate.
2 Goins Action, Dkt. 25, Goins’ Opposition to Motion to Consolidate. The Jones plaintiffs do not oppose the
Motion. See Motion to Consolidate at 1.
Case 2:25-cv-00345-RJS-JCB Document 35 Filed 02/12/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
BACKGROUND
Wolverine is a coal company that employs workers to mine and process coal.3
Wolverine employed Jones as an Outby Worker from approximately May 2018 to June 2022.4
Wolverine employed Goins as a beltman from approximately August 2024 to November 2024.5
Jones and Goings were both subjected to Wolverine’s pre/post shift off-the-clock policy, which
allegedly failed to compensate workers for time spent donning and doffing protective gear.6
On May 2, 2025, Jones filed his Complaint against Wolverine.7 On October 6, 2025,
Jones filed the operative Amended Complaint, alleging Wolverine violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Utah Payment of Wages Act (UPWA).8 On September 5, 2025,
Goins filed his Complaint, alleging Wolverine violated the FLSA.9 Both cases seek to bring a
FLSA collective action on behalf of other Wolverine employees.10
On December 11, 2025, Wolverine filed its Motion seeking to consolidate the two
matters.11 Goins filed a timely Opposition to the Motion,12 and Wolverine filed a timely Reply
in support of the Motion.13 Jones did not oppose the Motion.14 The Motion is ripe for review.
3 Jones Action, Dkt. 23, Amended Complaint (Jones Complaint) ¶¶ 32, 34; see also Goins Action, Dkt. 1, Complaint
(Goins Complaint) ¶¶ 25–30.
4 Jones Complaint ¶¶ 25–27.
5 Goins Complaint ¶ 11.
6 Jones Complaint ¶¶ 5–6; Goins Complaint ¶ 37.
7 Jones Action, Dkt. 1, Complaint.
8 Jones Complaint ¶¶ 140–156.
9 Goins Complaint.
10 Jones Complaint ¶¶ 92–120; Goins Complaint ¶¶ 48–75.
11 Motion to Consolidate.
12 Goins’ Opposition to Motion to Consolidate.
13 Jones Action, Dkt. 34, Reply in Support of Motion to Consolidate.
14 See Motion to Consolidate at 1; see generally Docket.
Case 2:25-cv-00345-RJS-JCB Document 35 Filed 02/12/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to consolidate actions “involving a
common question of law or fact[.]”15 Under local rule DUCivR 42-1, a “party may file a motion
. . . to consolidate two or more cases before a single judge if the party believes that such cases or
matters: arise from substantially the same transaction or event; involve substantially the same
parties or property; involve the same patent, trademark, or copyright; call for determination of
substantially the same questions of law; or for any other reason that would entail substantial
duplication of labor or unnecessary court costs or delay if heard by different judges.”16 Whether
consolidation under Rule 42(a) is appropriate is within the discretion of the district court.17 The
party seeking consolidation bears the burden of establishing it is appropriate.18
ANALYSIS
Wolverine argues consolidation serves judicial economy and reduces unnecessary costs
because the two actions involve “the same employment practices, name the same sole defendant,
and purport to cover the same potential opt-in plaintiffs.19 Wolverine further argues the parties
will “engage in identical discovery, depose the same witnesses, and gather the same evidence to
prove their claims and defenses.”20 Goins does not disagree with Wolverine’s assertions but
rather argues consolidations impedes on Goins’s right to choose his partners in litigation and
15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
16 DUCivR 42-1.
17 See Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted).
18 Phillip M. Adams & Assocs., LLC v. Dell Inc., No. 1:05-cv-64 TS, 2008 WL 203316, at *2 (D. Utah Jan. 23,
2008) (citing Shump, 574 F.2d at 1344).
19 Motion to Consolidate at 2.
20 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00345-RJS-JCB Document 35 Filed 02/12/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
counsel and right to consent to any collective action.21 Goins appears to be amenable to
coordination, but not a “full merger” of the two matters.22 In Reply, Wolverine admits that “at
bottom” it wants what Goins seems to agree to: “identical scheduling orders, coordinating
discovery, consolidating the cases for pre-trial purposes, and conducting a joint trial.”23
Judicial economy will be served by coordinated discovery. There is no dispute that the
proposed collective actions will cover substantially the same plaintiffs and involve similar
questions of fact and law about Wolverine’s donning and doffing policy. Parties will need to
depose the same witnesses and find similar evidence to prove their claims and defenses. But the
court finds these policies are sufficiently served by coordinating discovery and case management
across the two cases. Consolidation is not necessary.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.24 The parties are
ORDERED to meet and confer and submit a stipulated joint case management order in both the
Jones action and the Goins action within 14 days. If parties cannot agree on a stipulated case
management order, parties may file competing orders in their respective cases, and the court will
issue a single, identical order in both actions.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reassign Goins v. Wolverine Fuels, Case No. 2:25-
cv-00767-RJS-DBP to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett to ensure consistency and to promote
judicial efficiency.
21 Opposition to Motion to Consolidate at 2, 5.
22 Id. at 2; see also id. at 4–5, 6.
23 Reply in Support of Motion to Consolidate at 3 (citing Opposition to Motion to Consolidate at 4).
24 Jones Action, Dkt. 29.
Case 2:25-cv-00345-RJS-JCB Document 35 Filed 02/12/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
SO ORDERED this 12th day of February 2026.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00345-RJS-JCB Document 35 Filed 02/12/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5