Hart v. Boeing Company, Inc., The

Filing 86

ORDER. Defendants Notice of Related Case and Unopposed Motion To Consolidate 80 is GRANTED. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Case No. 10-cv-00552-PAB is CONSOLIDATED with Civil Case No. 09-cv-00397-REB-MEHfor all purpo ses. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Case No. 10-cv-00552-PAB SHALL BE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District of Colorado. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 03/17/2010.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 09-cv-00397-REB-MEH (Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 09-cv-00398-REB-MEH, 09-cv-00399-REB-MEH, 09-cv-00400-REB-MEH, 09-cv-1064-REB-MEH, 09-cv-1065-REB-MEH, 09-cv-01066REB-MEH, 09-cv-01067-REB-MEH, 09-cv-02208-REB-MEH, 09-cv-02209-REB-MEH, 09-cv-02210-REB-MEH, 09-cv-02412-REB-MEH, and 10-cv-00400-REB-MEH) JULIE HART, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., Defendant. Civil Case No. 10-cv-00552-PAB JERED MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., Defendant. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Blackburn, J. The matter before me is Defendant's Notice of Related Case and Unopposed Motion To Consolidate [#80], filed March 15, 2010. I grant the motion. As I found and concluded in previous orders granting consolidation in this matter, the newly instituted action, Civil Case No. 10-cv-00552-PAB, Martin v. The Boeing

Company, Inc., implicates questions of law and fact common to those arising in the cases previously consolidated. (See Order Granting Motion To Consolidate and Denying Motions To Dismiss Without Prejudice [#32] entered June 15, 2009; Order Granting Defendant's Unopposed Motion To Consolidate Related Actions [#49] filed September 28, 2009; Order Granting Defendant's Unopposed Motion To Consolidate Related Actions [#52] entered October 15, 2009; Order Granting Defendant's Unopposed Motion To Consolidate [#78] entered March 3, 2010.) Consolidation of this action into Civil Case No. 09-cv-00397-REB-MEH, therefore, will be appropriate and efficacious. See FED.R.CIV.P. 42(a); Breaux v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 220 F.R.D. 366, 367 (D. Colo. 2004). THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That Defendant's Notice of Related Case and Unopposed Motion To Consolidate [#80] filed March 15, 2010, is GRANTED; 2. That pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Case No. 10-cv-00552-PAB is CONSOLIDATED with Civil Case No. 09-cv-00397-REB-MEH for all purposes; 3. That pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Case No. 10-cv-00552-PAB SHALL BE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District of Colorado; 4. That all future filings in these consolidated actions shall be captioned as shown below:

2

Civil Case No. 09-cv-00397-REB-MEH (Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 09-cv-00398-REB-MEH, 09-cv-00399-REB-MEH, 09-cv-00400-REB-MEH, 09-cv-1064-REB-MEH, 09-cv-1065-REB-MEH, 09-cv-01066REB-MEH, 09-cv-01067-REB-MEH, 09-cv-02208-REB-MEH, 09-cv-02209-REB-MEH, 09-cv-02210-REB-MEH, 09-cv-02412-REB-MEH, 10-cv-00400-REB-MEH, and 10-cv00552-REB-MEH) JULIE HART, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., Defendant. and; 5. That plaintiff in Civil Case No. 10-cv-00552 SHALL FILE either a written notice of joinder in Plaintiffs' Opposition to The Boeing Company's Motion To Certify Order Denying Motion To Dismiss for Interlocutory Appeal (Dkt. No. 56) [#70] filed December 14, 2009, or, alternatively, SHALL FILE a separate response to the motion by no later than March 22, 2010; provided, furthermore, if plaintiff files a separate response, then defendant may file a reply within the time permitted by D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C. Dated March 17, 2010, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

3