Graziano v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation
Antonio Graziano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation; Omar Santana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation; Errol Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation; Asjad Ali, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:26-cv-02160
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
Judge Provinzino consolidated four putative class action lawsuits against Wagner Spray Tech Corporation over a power steamer product recall into a single case in Graziano v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation.
Consumers who purchased certain Wagner Spray Tech power steamer products subject to the Power Steamer Recall, who are potential class members in this consolidated litigation, as well as Wagner Spray Tech Corporation as defendant.
What happened
Four separate putative class action lawsuits — Graziano v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation, Santana v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation, Cooper v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation, and Ali v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation — were filed in the District of Minnesota against Wagner Spray Tech Corporation. All four cases involve products liability claims arising from a recall of certain power steamer products sold by Wagner, and each plaintiff sought to represent a class of similarly situated individuals.
The plaintiffs in each case moved to consolidate the actions, and the parties also filed joint stipulations agreeing to consolidation. The court found that because all four cases arise from the same underlying factual event, share overlapping legal claims, and seek to represent the same class of people, they involve common questions of law and fact — the legal standard for consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino granted the consolidation motions and stipulations, ordering the three later-filed cases merged into the earliest-filed case. The consolidated action will be recaptioned as 'In re Wagner Spray Tech Corporation Products Liability Litigation.' The order also sets a schedule requiring plaintiffs to propose a leadership structure and file a motion for interim class counsel within 7 days, and to file a consolidated complaint within 30 days after class counsel is appointed.
The detailed version
- Graziano v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation · No. 0:26-cv-02160
- Laura M. Provinzino
- May 27, 2026
Background
Four separate putative class actions (proposed group lawsuits) were filed in the District of Minnesota against Wagner Spray Tech Corporation ('Wagner'), each arising from a recall of certain power steamer products Wagner sold (the 'Power Steamer Recall'). The cases and their filing dates, as reflected in the opinion, are:
- Graziano v. Wagner Spray Tech Corp., No. 26-cv-2073, filed March 27, 2026 - Santana v. Wagner Spray Tech Corp., No. 26-cv-2097, filed March 31, 2026 - Ali v. Wagner Spray Tech Corp., No. 26-cv-2568, filed April 1, 2026 - Cooper v. Wagner Spray Tech Corp., No. 26-cv-2160, filed April 6, 2026
Each plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a putative class, asserted substantively similar products liability causes of action related to the Power Steamer Recall. The plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate and, together with Wagner, filed joint stipulations agreeing to consolidation. Wagner's agreement was expressly noted as 'without prejudice to any of [Wagner's] arguments on the merits of Plaintiffs' claims and/or request for certification.'
Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), a court may consolidate cases that share common questions of law or fact. The court cited EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir. 1998), for the proposition that consolidation is appropriate when it helps avoid unnecessary cost or delay and furthers judicial economy. A district court has 'substantial discretion' in deciding whether to consolidate cases. Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S. 59, 77 (2018).
Analysis and Ruling
The court found that because all four cases arise from the same underlying factual event (the Power Steamer Recall), involve overlapping causes of action, and seek to represent the same class of individuals, they share common questions of law and fact warranting consolidation.
Order
Judge Provinzino granted the consolidation motions and stipulations and ordered the following:
- The three later-filed cases are consolidated for all purposes into the earliest-filed case, Graziano v. Wagner Spray Tech Corp., No. 26-cv-2073.
- The consolidated case will be recaptioned In re Wagner Spray Tech Corporation Products Liability Litigation, No. 26-cv-2073.
- Future related cases filed in, transferred to, or removed to the District of Minnesota may be consolidated into this action upon the court's determination.
- Within 7 days of the order, plaintiffs must confer on a leadership structure and file a motion for appointment of interim class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
- Within 30 days after an interim class counsel order is entered, plaintiffs must file a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
- Wagner must file an answer or a Rule 12 motion (a motion to dismiss or similar threshold motion) within 45 days after the consolidated complaint is filed.
- The order sets a detailed briefing schedule for any Rule 12 motion practice, including opportunities for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 30 days of any Rule 12 motion, and specifies reply deadlines.
- Deadlines may be modified only upon a showing of good cause.
Notes
All parties are represented by counsel. No merits issues were addressed. Wagner's consent to consolidation was expressly without prejudice to any arguments on the merits or class certification.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.