Scharfenstine v. Boeing Company, Inc., The

Filing 28

ORDER. Unopposed Amended Motion To Consolidate Related Actions 28, filed 06/05/2009 is GRANTED. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a)(2) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Action Nos. 09-cv-00398-REB-MJW, 09-cv-00399-REB-CBS, 09-cv-00400-REB-MEH, 09-cv-1064-REB -KLM, 09-cv-1065-CMA-KMT, 09-cv-01066-REB-MEH, and 09-cv-01067-REB-CBS, are CONSOLIDATED with Civil Action No. 09-cv-00397-REB-MEHfor all purposes. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Action Nos. 09-cv-00398-REB-MJW, 09-cv-00399-REB-CBS, 09-cv-106 4-REB-KLM, 09-cv-1065-CMA-KMT, and 09- cv-01067-REB-CBS are REASSIGNED to Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty. Defendant The Boeing Company, Inc.s Motion To Dismiss 15 , filed 04/13/2009 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. By Robert E. Blackburn on 06/15/2009(sah, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 09-cv-00397-REB-MEH JULIE HART, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., Defendant. Civil Case No. 09-cv-00398-REB-MJW CAREY MEGAN SCHARFENSTINE, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., Defendant. Civil Case No. 09-cv-00399-REB-CBS CAREY MEGAN SCHARFENSTINE, as mother of LLOYD COLIN SCHARFENSTINE and next friend of LLOYD COLIN SCHARFENSTINE, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 09-cv-00400-REB-MEH CAREY MEGAN SCHARFENSTINE, as Mother of GREYSON COLE SCHAFRENSTINE, and Next Friend of GREYSON COLE SCHARFENSTINE, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., Defendant. Civil Case No. 09-cv-01064-REB-KLM DANIELA ESCUDERO CONTAG, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., Defendant. Civil Case No. 09-cv-01065-CMA-KMT GABRIEL TREJOS, Plaintiffs, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., Defendant. Civil Case No. 09-cv-01066-REB-MEH MARIA DEANDRA TREJOS, Plaintiffs, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., Defendant. Civil Case No. 09-cv-01067-REB-CBS GABRIEL TREJOS, and MARIA DEANDRA TREJOS, as the Parents of Elijah Gabriel Trejos and Next Friends of ELIJAH GABRIEL TREJOS, Plaintiffs, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., Defendant. 2 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Blackburn, J. The matter before me is defendant's Unopposed Amended Motion To Consolidate Related Actions [#28], filed June 5, 2009. I grant the motion. The motion to consolidate concerns eight separate cases filed in this court against The Boeing Company, Inc., all arising from the December, 2008, crash of Continental Flight 1404 at Denver International Airport. These cases are as follows: (1) Julie Hart v. The Boeing Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-00397, filed February 25, 2009; (2) Carey Megan Scharfenstine v. The Boeing Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-00398-REB-MJW, filed February 25, 2009; (3) Carey Megan Scharfenstine as Mother and Next Friend of Lloyd Colin Scharfenstine v. The Boeing Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-00399-REB-CBS, filed February 25, 2009; (4) Carey Megan Scharfenstine as Mother and Next Friend of Greyson Cole Scharfenstine v. The Boeing Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-00400-REB-MEH, filed February 25, 2009; (5) Daniela Escudero Contag v. The Boeing Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-01064-REB-KLM, filed May 7, 2009; (6) Gabriel Trejos v. The Boeing Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-01065-CMA-KMT, filed May 7, 2009; (7) Maria Deandra Trejos v. The Boeing Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-01066REB-MEH, filed May 7, 2009; and (8) Gabriel Trejos and Maria Deandra Trejos as Parents and Next Friends of Elijah Gabriel Trejos v. The Boeing Company, Inc., 3 Civil Action No. 09-cv-01067-REB-CBS, filed May 7, 2009. The determination whether to consolidate cases is governed by Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides, pertinently: When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. FED.R.CIV.P. 42(a).1 This rule allows the court "to decide how cases on its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched with expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties." Breaux v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 220 F.R.D. 366, 367 (D. Colo. 2004) (quoting 9 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 2381 at 427 (2nd ed. 1995)). The decision whether to consolidate cases is committed to my sound discretion. Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978). It is clear in this case that common questions of law and fact predominate among the eight cases listed above and that consolidation therefore will be appropriate and efficacious. Having thus concluded, I also deny the pending motions to dismiss in each of the separate cases without prejudice and require defendant to refile a single such motion in the consolidated action if it so chooses. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That Unopposed Amended Motion To Consolidate Related Actions [#28], 1 As the district judge to whom the oldest numbered case involved in the proposed consolidation is assigned for trial, the question whether to consolidate these matters falls to me for determination. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1. 4 filed June 5, 2009, is GRANTED; 2. That pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a)(2) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Action Nos. 09-cv-00398-REB-MJW, 09-cv-00399-REB-CBS, 09-cv-00400-REB-MEH, 09-cv-1064-REB-KLM, 09-cv-1065-CMA-KMT, 09-cv-01066-REB-MEH, and 09-cv01067-REB-CBS, are CONSOLIDATED with Civil Action No. 09-cv-00397-REB-MEH for all purposes; 3. That pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Action Nos. 09-cv-00398-REBMJW, 09-cv-00399-REB-CBS, 09-cv-1064-REB-KLM, 09-cv-1065-CMA-KMT, and 09cv-01067-REB-CBS are REASSIGNED to Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty; 4. That all future filings in these consolidated actions shall be captioned as shown below: 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, and 09-cv-01067-REB-MEH) JULIE HART, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., Defendant. 5. That the following motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refile: (a) Defendant The Boeing Company, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss [#13], filed April 13, 2009, in Civil Action No. 09-cv-00397-REB-MEH; 5 (b) Defendant The Boeing Company, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss [#11], filed April 13, 2009, in Civil Action No. 09-cv-00398-REB-MEH; (c) Defendant The Boeing Company, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss [#12], filed April 13, 2009, in Civil Action No. 09-cv-00399-REB-MEH; (d) Defendant The Boeing Company, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss [#15], filed April 13, 2009, in Civil Action No. 09-cv-00400-REB-MEH; (e) Defendant The Boeing Company, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss [#6], filed June 10, 2009, in Civil Action No. 09-cv-01064-REB-MEH; (f) Defendant The Boeing Company, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss [#7], filed June 10, 2009, in Civil Action No. 09-cv-01065-REB-MEH; (g) Defendant The Boeing Company, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss [#6], filed June 10, 2009, in Civil Action No. 09-cv-01066-REB-MEH; and (h) Defendant The Boeing Company, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss [#7], filed June 10, 2009, in Civil Action No. 09-cv-01067-REB-MEH. Dated June 15, 2009, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: 6

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?