Town of Superior, The v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Consolidate filed in 12-cv-00034-PAB. This case and 12-cv-00034-PAB shall be consolidated. 11-cv-03294-PAB will constitute the lead case, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 1/27/12. (gmssl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00034-PAB
CITY OF GOLDEN, COLORADO,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s unopposed motion to consolidate
[Docket No. 2] this case with Civil Action No. 11-cv-03294-PAB pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 42(a)(2) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1 and the parties’ joint status report [Docket No.
6].
When plaintiff filed its motion to consolidate, this case was assigned to the
Court’s AP docket. Therefore, the motion to consolidate should have been filed in Civil
Action No. 11-cv-03294-PAB. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1 (“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.”). The matter has since been reassigned to
me pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1C. See Docket No. 3. Therefore, the Court will
take up the motion in this case.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2), the Court is permitted to consolidate
actions if they “involve a common question of law or fact.” The Court has “broad

discretion 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.” 9A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure – Civil, § 2381 (3d ed.
2011). As the parties point out, the two cases challenge the same administrative
decision based on primarily the same legal grounds, involve identical defendants, and
seek common relief. See Docket No. 2 at 2-3.1 The Court finds that the two cases
have substantial questions of law and fact in common and that consolidation would
serve the interests of judicial economy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
The parties have also filed a joint status report. See Docket No. 6.2 The parties
request guidance from the Court before committing resources to issues that
may be affected by consolidation, such as the need for separate
administrative record(s). Other issues that the parties wish to address
include: whether a single docket number will be used for both cases,
whether briefing of the cases will be consolidated, and whether the parties
ought to submit one Joint Case Management Plan in the event of
consolidation.
Docket No. 6 at 2. Defendants have yet to file an answer in either of the
aforementioned cases. Upon the filing of an answer, the Court will issue an order with
instructions for preparing a joint case management plan pursuant to D.C.COLO.LAPR
16.1A. The parties will have the opportunity when preparing that plan to express their
views on the various issues raised in the joint status report.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s unopposed motion to consolidate [Docket No. 2] this

1

No party in either matter objects to consolidation. See Docket No. 2 at 1.

2

The parties in Civil Action No. 11-cv-03294-PAB have filed an identical status
report in that matter. See Docket No. 19 in 11-cv-03294-PAB.
2

case with Civil Action No. 11-cv-03294-PAB is GRANTED. This case and Civil Action
No. 11-cv-03294-PAB shall be consolidated. It is further
ORDERED that this order shall be docketed in both this case and in Civil Action
No. 11-cv-03294-PAB, which will constitute the lead case.

DATED January 27, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

3