ORDER

GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.

Before the Court is the Motion to Consolidate filed by Defendant Briad Restaurant Group, LLC ("Defendant") in Case Nos. 2:14-cv-00786-GMN-PAL (the "Hanks case") and 2:16-cv-02217-GMN-PAL (the "Earl case").1 Plaintiffs2 in both cases have opposed the Motions, which are fully briefed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motions.

I. BACKGROUND

This dispute arises out of alleged violations of an amendment to the Nevada Constitution setting certain minimum wage requirements for employers known as the Minimum Wage Amendment ("MWA"). Plaintiffs are current and former employees of various TGI Friday's restaurant chain locations throughout Nevada. On May 19, 2014, Plaintiffs initiated the Hanks case allegedly as "a result of [Defendant's] failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees who are members of the Class the lawful minimum wage, because [Defendant] improperly claimed eligibility to compensate employees at a reduced minimum wage rate under Nev. Const. art. XV, § 16." (Am. Compl. ¶ 1, Hanks case, ECF No. 6).

On July 27, 2015, the Court dismissed five Plaintiffs from the Hanks action who were parties to various arbitration agreements and ordered them to arbitrate their MWA claims against Defendant. (Order, Hanks case, ECF No. 93). On September 20, 2016, the dismissed Hanks Plaintiffs initiated the Earl action, "seeking an order from this Court declaring provisions in Defendant's arbitration agreements that purport to prohibit class or representative actions, even in arbitration proceedings, are invalid pursuant to National Labor Relations Act." (Compl. ¶ 1, Earl case, ECF No. 1). The Earl Plaintiffs allege that they intend to file a class arbitration, but that the American Arbitration Association requires a court order declaring such provisions invalid before accepting any class arbitration claims. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 12).

Defendants filed this Motion in both cases, seeking to consolidate the cases. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the motion.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to consolidate. It provides:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).

When deciding whether to consolidate cases, the threshold question for the court to answer is whether the actions involve common questions of law or fact. See id. If the court determines that common questions are present, it must then balance the savings of time and effort that consolidation will produce against any inconvenience, delay, confusion, or prejudice that may result. Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). Finally, whether actions should be consolidated under Rule 42(a) is a matter committed to the trial court's discretion. Inv'rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989).

III. ANALYSIS

Although these two cases originate from essentially the same set of facts, in the Court's view both the parties and claims are not sufficiently similar to merit consolidation. Indeed, while Plaintiffs in both cases dispute whether Defendant complied with the MWA, only the Hanks Plaintiffs' MWA claims will be determined before this Court. The MWA claims raised by the Earl Plaintiffs will be heard by an arbitrator. Furthermore, these cases are at completely different stages of pretrial litigation. The Hanks case was commenced almost five years ago, and the Earl case was filed at the end of last year. Consolidation would therefore only cause further delay and waste judicial resources. Finally, Defendant in the Earl case argues that a stay of that case is appropriate in light of the Supreme Court's decision to grant petitions for writ of certiorari in what Defendant claims are cases implicating dispositive issues. Thus, if the cases were consolidated, it is possible that the Court would then be required to enter a stay as to certain Plaintiffs but proceed as to others. Plaintiffs in each case should therefore be allowed to pursue their separate claims independently of the distinct issues raised in the other case.

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motions to Consolidate, ECF No. 126 in Case No. 2:14-cv-00786-GMN-PAL, and ECF No. 12 in Case No. 2:16-cv-02217-GMN-PAL, are DENIED.