Stringer et al v. Flagstar Bank, FSB

Filing 8

ORDER granting 3 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. The Clerk is directed to statistically close this case. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 11/30/2012. (tgw)

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