Doe v. Bentonville School District et al

Filing 110

OPINION AND ORDER denying 102 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on November 24, 2015. (rg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

BRITTANY 0, as Parent and
Next Friend of L
V.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 5:15-CV-5020
DEFENDANTS

BENTONVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.

OPINION AND ORDER
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Cases or
Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41 (a) (Doc. 102) and supporting Brief
(Doc. 104), and Defendants' Responses in Opposition (Docs. 108 and 109). For the
reasons given below, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her original Complaint (Doc. 1) on March 5, 2014, in the Eastern
District of Arkansas. One of the defendants named in her original Complaint was Vista
Health, d/b/a Vista TOT, d/b/a Vantage Point of Northwest Arkansas.

Plaintiff never

served the Complaint on Vista Health within 120 days of the Complaint's filing , as
required by Fed . R. Civ. P. 4. On July 16, 2014, she filed her Amended Complaint
(Doc. 10). One of the defendants named in her Amended Complaint was New Boston
Enterprises, Inc. , Parent Company of Texarkana Behavioral Associates , L.C. , a wholly
owned subsidiary, d/b/a Vista Health, d/b/a Vantage Point of Northwest Arkansas-i.e.,
the same defendant identified as "Vista Health" in her original Complaint, which had not
been timely served with the original Complaint. On January 22, 2015, the Honorable J.
Leon Holmes entered an Order transferring venue to this Court, and dismissing
1

Plaintiff's claims against Vista Health without prejudice under Fed . R. Civ. P. 4(m)
because Plaintiff did not show good cause for her failure to timely serve Texarkana
Behavioral Associates . See Doc. 85 , pp . 4-5 , 17.
On March 13, 2015 , this Court conducted a Rule 16 case management hearing,
for the purpose of clarifying which claims remained against which entities, as well as to
set deadlines governing the litigation of this case through trial. During that hearing , Ms.
Caldwell, counsel for Plaintiff, informed the Court that she intended to file a separate
action against Vista Health here in the Western District of Arkansas , and to then move
to consolidate that case with the instant one , so as to revive her claims against Vista
Health that had been previously dismissed without prejudice by Judge Holmes for failure
to timely perfect service. The Court then asked Ms. Caldwell what she believed would
be a reasonable deadline for amending her Amended Complaint or consolidating this
case with other actions . Ms. Caldwell replied , "I anticipate that being filed within the
next three weeks , if not sooner." 1 In reliance on that representation by Ms. Caldwell ,
this Court entered an Order on March 20 , 2015 , "articulating what the Court
understands to be the remaining claims and parties in this matter at this time ," (Doc. 94 ,
p. 1), and concluding with instructions that:
If any party believes th is Order erroneously characterizes the nature or
identity of any of the remaining claims or defendants, then that party must
file a motion, and supporting brief, for correction of this Order based on
oversight or omission pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) by no later than
April 3, 2015. Otherwise , absent the granting of a timely motion for leave
to add "new" claims , this matter shall be limited to the claims and causes
of action enumerated above .

1

Based on the Court' s notes from the hea ri ng, as confirmed by a review of the real-time
transcript.

2

Id. at 4 (emphasis added) . One day later, the Court entered a Case Management Order

that stated , in relevant part, that "[l]eave to amend pleadings and/or to add or substitute
parties shall be sought no later than APRIL 30, 2015 ." (Doc. 95 , p. 2) (emphasis in
original) .
Six months later, on November 2, 2015 , Plaintiff finally initiated a separate action
against, inter alia, Veronica Odum (who is currently a defendant in the instant case) ;
New Boston Enterprises , Inc.; and Texarkana Behavioral Associates, d/b/a Vista Health
TOT and Vantage Point of Northwest Arkansas.

(Case No. 5:15-cv-5269 , Doc. 1).

Now, more than seven months after the deadline to move for a correction of this Court's
March 20 Order, and nearly seven months after the deadline to otherwise seek leave to
amend pleadings or substitute parties , Plaintiff has filed the Motion to Consolidate that
she represented to this Court more than eight months ago would be filed "within the
next three weeks , if not sooner."

Plaintiff provides no explanation in her Motion or

accompanying Brief as to why this Motion is being filed roughly seven months past the
deadline, much less does she articulate any good cause that would justify the delay.
Instead , she simply argues that Vista Health "is a necessary party to the present action ,
was dismissed from the present case , and involves an intertwined set of facts arising
from the same occurrence ."

(Doc. 102,

il

6) . According to the Defendant School

District, Plaintiff has "done very little to prosecute this case or to meet the deadlines set
forth in the Case Management Order entered in March ," and insists furthermore that
"Plaintiff's claims against the District Defendants are premised on entirely different
factual and legal issues than Plaintiff's claims against [Vista Health]." (Doc. 108, ilil 5,
13). Plaintiff's Motion is now ripe for consideration .

3

II. DISCUSSION
Rule 42 states that "[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of
law or fact , the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the
actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary
cost or delay."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) (emphasis added) .

Rule 41 requires that if

defendants have answered a plaintiff's complaint and have not all stipulated to that
plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal , then "an action may be dismissed at the
plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper." Fed . R.
Civ. P. 41(a)(2) .

The decision whether to grant a motion to consolidate is one

committed to the sound discretion of this Court, U.S. E.P.A. v. City of Green Forest,
Ark., 921 F.2d 1394, 1402 (8th Cir. 1990), as is the decision whether to grant an

opposed

motion

for

voluntary

dismissal ,

Hamm

v.

Rhone-Poulenc

Rorer

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 187 F.3d 941 , 950 (8th Cir. 1999). In considering whether to

grant a motion for voluntary dismissal , "a court should consider factors such as whether
the party has presented a proper explanation for its desire to dismiss, whether a
dismissal would result in a waste of judicial time and effort, and whether a dismissal will
prejudice the defendants." Id. (citations omitted) . Furthermore , "a party is not permitted
to dismiss merely to escape an adverse decision nor to seek a more favorable forum ."
Id.

As noted above , Plaintiff contends that her separate actions before this Court
involve a common question of law or fact , while the Defendant School District argues
they do not. 2 The Court does not believe it is necessary at this time to determine which

2

Defendant Odum states only that she is ready to proceed to trial as scheduled .
4

party is correct on this point, because the Court's ruling on the instant Motion would be
the same regardless . Clearly, if the School District is correct that the facts and issues in
these cases are disparate, then Rule 42 does not authorize consolidation here. But
even if Plaintiff is correct that the facts are "intertwined ," she has offered no explanation
for her failure to comply with the deadlines for amending pleadings and adding or
substituting parties that this Court imposed seven months ago .

The Court will not

exercise its discretion in a manner that would permit parties to ignore Court-imposed
deadlines and perform procedural end -runs around any consequences for such failures
to comply. The same reasoning leads the Court to conclude that at least three of the
Rule 41 factors recited above weigh heavily against granting a voluntary dismissal here;
specifically, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to present a proper explanation for
her desire to dismiss, that dismissal would result in a waste of judicial time and effort,
and that dismissal would permit Plaintiff to escape the Court's decision not to
consolidate these actions .
Ill. CONCLUSION

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Cases or
Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant.fl Rule 41 (a) (Doc. 102) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED on

this ~ day of No

mber, 201 .

0
L. BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5