Istre v. Montco Offshore, Inc. et al

Filing 261

Order denying the 260 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases. The movants are ordered to show cause by 6/21/2017 why this action should not be dismissed. Signed by District Judge William H. Steele on 6/7/2017. (tgw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION COLBY ISTRE, Plaintiff, v. MONTCO OFFSHORE, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION 16-0328-WS-N ) ) ) ) ORDER This matter is before the Court on the motion of the remaining parties to consolidate. (Doc. 260). The plaintiff and the remaining defendants (collectively, “Schat-Harding”) ask the Court to consolidate this case with Civil Action No. 170193-WS-N. The latter action, in which Schat-Harding sues PT Schneider Electric Manufacturing Batam (“Schneider”), was carved out of this one only a month ago, without objection from the movants; they now seek to reverse the action in which they recently acquiesced. (Docs. 256-57). The movants state that, when this action was transferred from the Eastern District of Louisiana in June 2016, they had resolved the claims between them, with both parties agreeing to pursue claims against Schneider. The movants note that the plaintiff filed claims against Schneider in December 2015 that mirror those raised by Schat-Harding in its third-party complaint (now Civil Action No. 17-0193). Thus, the movants conclude, the actions should be consolidated to avoid the redundancy of trying “essentially the same claims” in two actions. (Doc. 260 at 1-2). The plaintiff did indeed add Schneider as a defendant in December 2015. (Doc. 198). However, in March 2016 the Court dismissed those claims without prejudice for want of personal jurisdiction, (Doc. 207), an order later made final under Rule 54(b). (Doc. 216). The only claims remaining in this action are those of the plaintiff against Schat-Harding. Since there are no overlapping (much less identical) claims between the two actions, the motion to consolidate them is denied. The movants acknowledge that all claims between them in this lawsuit have been resolved by settlement. (Doc. 260 at 1). The movants are therefore ordered to show cause, on or before June 21, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of June, 2017. s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 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?