Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Stringer et al

Filing 35

ORDER granting 29 Motion to Consolidate. Lead Case No.: 12-0504-WS-N, Member Case No.: 12-0696-WS-N, All future pleadings to be filed in the Lead Case. The Clerk is directed to extract documents 1-7 in 12-0696-WS-N and to make those documents a part of the court file in 12-0504-WS-N. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 11/30/2012. (tgw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE ) CORPORATION, etc., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. )CIVIL ACTION 12-0504-WS-N ) LEON STRINGER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) LEON L. STRINGER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Defendant. ) ) ) ) )CIVIL ACTION 12-0696-WS-N ) ) ) ) ORDER Leon and Debra Stringer have filed motions to consolidate these actions. (Docs. 29, 3). The other parties declined the opportunity to object. (Docs. 30, 32, 6). A district court has authority to order consolidation of multiple actions if they “involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). These actions easily meet that requirement. Consolidation under Rule 42(a) “is permissive and vests a purely discretionary power in the district court.” Young v. City of Augusta, 59 F.3d 1160, 1168 (11th Cir. 1995) (internal quotes omitted). In exercising that discretion, district courts must weigh the risk of prejudice and confusion wrought by consolidation against the risk of inconsistent rulings on common factual and legal questions; the burden on the parties and the court posed by multiple lawsuits as opposed to one; the length of time required to conclude multiple lawsuits as opposed to one; and the relative expense of proceeding with separate lawsuits if they are not consolidated. Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985). “District courts in this circuit have been urged to make good use of Rule 42(a) … in order to expedite the trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion.” Young, 59 F.3d at 1169 (internal quotes omitted). These considerations, as applied to the posture and allegations of these lawsuits, persuade the Court to exercise its discretion in favor of consolidation. Accordingly, the motions to consolidate are granted. To effectuate consolidation, the Clerk is directed to extract documents 1 through 7 in Civil Action No. 12-0696-WS-N and to make those documents a part of the court file in Civil Action No. 12-0504-WS-N. Furthermore, the Court finds there is no reason to maintain the latter-filed action as an open file, and the Clerk is thus directed to statistically close Civil Action No. 12-0696-WS-N. The parties are ordered not to include the caption of Civil Action No. 12-0696-WS-N in any future filings and not to file any documents in that action. Rather, all future filings are to be made exclusively in, and with the style of, Civil Action No. 12-0504-WS-N. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2012. s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?