In Re: AEP River Operations LLC et al

Filing 58

ORDER granting 31 & 32 Motions to Consolidate. Lead Case No.: 13-318-WS-C, Member Case No.: 13-319-WS-C, 13-321-WS-C. All future pleadings to be filed in the Lead Case. The Clerk is directed to extract documents 1-67 in 13-0319-WS-C, and documents 1-57 in 13-0321-WS-C, and to make those documents a part of the court file in 13-0318-WS-C. The Clerk is directed to statistically close 13-0319-WS-C and 13-0321-WS-C. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 8/30/2013. (tgw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN RE: THE MATTER OF TAIRA
LYNN LIMITED NO. 7, etc., et al.,
PRAYING FOR EXONERATION
FROM OR LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY

)
)
) CIVIL ACTION 13-0318-WS-C
)
)

IN RE: THE MATTER OF THE
COMPLAINT OF KIRBY INLAND
MARINE, L.P., etc., PETITIONING
FOR EXONERATION FROM OR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

)
)
) CIVIL ACTION 13-0319-WS-C
)
)

IN RE: THE MATTER OF THE
COMPLAINT OF AEP RIVER
OPERATIONS LLC, etc., et al.,
PRAYING FOR EXONERATION
FROM OR LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY

)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION 13-0321-WS-C
)
)
)

ORDER
Certain claimants have filed motions to consolidate these three actions. In
re: The Matter of Taira Lynn, Doc. 27; In re: The Complaint of Kirby Inland
Marine, Doc. 40; In re: The Complaint of AEP River Operations, Docs. 31, 33.
The Court provided all parties ample time to object, and none have done so.
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 67 in Civil
Action No. 13-0319-WS-C, and documents 1 through 57 in Civil Action No. 130321-WS-C, and to make those documents a part of the court file in Civil Action
No. 13-0318-WS-C. Furthermore, the Court finds there is no reason to maintain
the latter-filed actions as open files, and the Clerk is thus directed to statistically
close Civil Action No. 13-0319-WS-C and Civil Action No. 13-0321-WS-C. The
parties are ordered to file all future filings only in Civil Action No. 13-0318-WSC and to include only that case number and style.
DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of August, 2013.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2