Craft et al v. USA

Filing 10

ORDER. Defendant United States of Americas Motion To Consolidate Case and Certificate of Compliance With D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 9 , filed 9/8/2011, is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/9/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 11-cv-02253-REB-MJW
MELISSA CRAFT,
EMILY PELLIGRINI,
AUBREY DEMPSEY,
DEBRALYNN DEMPSEY,
MARK REYNA,
NICHOLAS HAMRA,
JESSICA MUTSCHLER,
GERARDO IVAN RANERO, a minor by his next friend MARIA WARD,
KENNETH KELLY,
SANDRA KELLY,
LEAH KELLY,
KRISTINA BEAGLE,
DANIEL TAKAMI,
GLORIA SANCHEZ,
ALEXANDER GORHAM,
JAMES E. McLEAN,
THERESA McLEAN,
JACLYN McLEAN,
JOSEF McLEAN, and
JAMES E. McLEAN, JR.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Defendant United States of America’s Motion To
Consolidate Case and Certificate of Compliance With D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 [#9]1

1

“[#9]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific
paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention
throughout this order.

filed September 8, 2011. I deny the motion.
Pursuant to the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado-Civil, “[a] motion to consolidate shall be decided by the district judge
to whom the oldest numbered case involved in the proposed consolidation is assigned
for trial” and, if consolidation is found to be warranted, the consolidated case is
assigned to the docket in the lowest numbered case. D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1. In this
matter, the lowest numbered case is Ressler, et al. v. United States, Civil Action No.
10-cv-03050-REB-BNB.2 Although I am the district judge assigned to both cases,
resolution of the motion for consolidation must be decided in the lowest numbered case.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant United States of America’s
Motion To Consolidate Case and Certificate of Compliance With D.C.COLO.LCivR
7.1 [#9], filed September 8, 2011, is DENIED.
Dated September 9, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2

I note that defendant has filed identical motions in two other pending cases as well. (See
Defendant United States of America’s Motion To Consolidate Case and Certificate of Compliance
With D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 [#9] filed September 8, 2011, Contag et al. v. United States, Civil Case No.
11-cv-01832-MSK-MJW; Defendant United States of America’s Motion To Consolidate Case and
Certificate of Compliance With D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 [#9] filed September 8, 2011, Global Aerospace,
Inc. v. United States, Civil Case No. 11-cv-01874-WYD-KMT.)