Hildebrand v. Monroe Truck Equipment (MTE)

Filing 15

ORDER That after consultation with the magistrate judge, the reference 19 to the magistrate judge of the Unopposed Motion To Consolidate Cases 18 filed April 17, 2014, in Civil Action No.13-cv-03344 is WITHDRAWN; Granting 18 the Unopposed Motio n To Consolidate Cases; That under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, David L. Hildebrand v. Monroe Truck Equipment, Civil Action No. 14-cv-00425-REB-MEH is CONSOLIDATED with David L. Hildebrand v. City of Boulder, Civil Action No. 13-cv-03344-REB-MEH for all purposes; by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 4/22/2014. (evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03344-REB-MEH
DAVID L. HILDEBRAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BOULDER,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 14-cv-00425-REB-MEH
DAVID L. HILDEBRAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONROE TRUCK EQUIPMENT,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the Unopposed Motion To Consolidate Cases
[#18]1 filed April 17, 2014, in Civil Action No. 13-cv-03344. Inadvertently, this motion
was referred [#19] to the magistrate judge. After consultation with the magistrate judge,
I withdraw the reference [#19] and I grant the motion.

1

“[#18]” 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.

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).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 the claim of the plaintiff, David Hildebrand, that he owns
United States Patent #5,651,527 (the ‘527 patent), titled “Support Structure for Use with
Heavy Equipment.” In his complaints in the two above-captioned cases, Mr. Hildebrand
alleges that the named defendants are infringing his patent. 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 after consultation with the magistrate judge, the reference [#19] to the

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

magistrate judge of the Unopposed Motion To Consolidate Cases [#18] filed April 17,
2014, in Civil Action No.13-cv-03344 is WITHDRAWN;
2. That the Unopposed Motion To Consolidate Cases [#18] filed April 17,
2014, in Civil Action No.13-cv-03344, is GRANTED;
3. That under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, David L.
Hildebrand v. Monroe Truck Equipment, Civil Action No. 14-cv-00425-REB-MEH is
CONSOLIDATED with David L. Hildebrand v. City of Boulder, Civil Action No. 13-cv03344-REB-MEH for all purposes; and
4. That all future filings in these consolidated actions shall be captioned as
follows:

Civil Action No. 13-cv-03344-REB-MEH
(consolidated with Civil Action No. 14-cv-00425_REB-MEH)
DAVID L. HILDEBRAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BOULDER,
Defendant.

Dated April 22, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3