Wells v. Smith et al

Filing 67

ORDER granting 65 Plaintiffs Thomas Wells and James Swaggertys Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions. All future filings shall contain the caption as set forth and shall be docketed under Civil Action No. 12-cv-0447-WJM-KLM. The Clerk shall docket a copy of this Order in 12-cv-00589-WJM-KMT and terminate ECF No. 52 as GRANTED, by Judge William J. Martinez on 10/8/2013.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 12-cv-0447-WJM-KLM
THOMAS B. WELLS, Derivatively on Behalf of MOLYCORP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK A. SMITH, et al.
Defendants,
MOLYCORP, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Nominal Defendant.
and
Civil Action No. 12-cv-0589-WJM-KLM
JAMES SWAGGERTY, Derivatively on Behalf of MOLYCORP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK A. SMITH, et al.
Defendants,
MOLYCORP, INC., a Delaware corporation
Nominal Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Thomas Wells and James Swaggerty’s Unopposed

Motion to Consolidate Related Actions (“Motion”). (ECF Nos. 65)1 Defendants do not
oppose consolidation. The Court having reviewed the Motion and finding good cause
exists, hereby GRANTS the Motion for the following reasons:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that consolidation is appropriate
when the actions involve common questions of law or fact:
If 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). Further, consolidation is committed to the sound discretion of the
trial court. Chimal v. Sledge, No. 06-cv-02394, 2007 WL 1576346, at *1 (D. Colo. May
31, 2007). “The purpose of Rule 42(a) is to give the court 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.” Skaggs
v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., No. 09-cv-200, 2009 WL 458682, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb.
24, 2009) (quotations omitted).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.5E, the Court finds that
the two actions listed below involve common questions of law or fact, including common
parties and common claims. The Court also finds that consolidation of these cases will
avoid unnecessary costs and delays. The Court notes that consolidation is not opposed
by any party to the actions.
Accordingly, the Court orders that the following cases are consolidated: (1)

1

This motion was also filed in Civil Action 12-cv-0589-WJM-KLM at ECF No. 52.

2

Thomas B Wells, Derivatively and on Behalf of Molycorp, Inc.. v. Mark A. Smith, et al.,
12-cv-0447-WJM-KLM; (2) James Swaggerty, Derivatively and on Behalf of Molycorp,
Inc. v. Mark A. Smith, et al., 12-cv-0589-WJM-KLM. All future filings in either of these
actions shall contain the caption as set forth above and shall be docketed under Civil
Action No. 12-cv-0447-WJM-KLM. The Clerk shall docket a copy of this Order in 12-cv00589-WJM-KMT and terminate ECF No. 52 as GRANTED.
Dated this 8th day of October, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

3