Wyers Products Group v. Cequent Performance Products, Inc.

Filing 83

ORDER granting 81 Motion to Consolidate. Cequent Performance Products, Inc. v. Wyers Products Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13-cv-02976-MSK is CONSOLIDATED with Wyers Products Group, Inc., el al. v. Cequent Performance Products, Inc., Civil Action No. 10-cv-02640-REB-KMT for all purposes. Civil Action No. 13-cv-02976-MSK is REASSIGNED to United States District Judge Robert E. Blackburn and to United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/4/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02640-REB-KMT
WYERS PRODUCTS GROUP, INC., and
PHILLIP W. WYERS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CEQUENT PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02976-MSK
CEQUENT PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WYERS PRODUCTS GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the Parties’ Stipulated Motion To Consolidate Cases
[#81]1 filed November 1, 2013. The motion is granted.
The determination whether to consolidate cases is governed by Rule 42(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides, pertinently:
1

“[#81]” 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.

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).2 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).
The cases addressed in the motion to consolidate, and shown in the caption of
this order, both arise from competing claims of patent infringement concerning the
parties’ competing trailer locking products. The two cases involve the same parties and
involve common questions of law and fact. Common questions of law and fact
predominate in these two cases such that consolidation is appropriate and efficacious.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Parties’ Stipulated Motion To Consolidate Cases [#81] filed
November 2, 2013, is GRANTED;
2. That under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Cequent
Performance Products, Inc. v. Wyers Products Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
13-cv-02976-MSK is CONSOLIDATED with Wyers Products Group, Inc., el al. v.

2

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.

2

Cequent Performance Products, Inc., Civil Action No. 10-cv-02640-REB-KMT for all
purposes;
3. That under D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Action No. 13-cv-02976-MSK is
REASSIGNED to United States District Judge Robert E. Blackburn and to United States
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya; and
4. That all future filings in these consolidated actions shall be captioned as
follows:

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02640-REB-KMT
(consolidated with Civil Action No. 13-cv-02976-REB-KMT)
WYERS PRODUCTS GROUP, INC., and
PHILLIP W. WYERS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CEQUENT PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant.

Dated November 4, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3