Sprague v. Michaels Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting 27 Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Cases. Civil Action No. 14-cv-01025-CMA-CBS is CONSOLIDATED with Civil Action No. 14-cv-00808-CMA-CBS for all purposes. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 05/14/2014. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00808-CMA-CBS (Consolidated for all purposes with
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01025-CMA-CBS)
BILLIE SPRAGUE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAELS STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
THE GERSON COMPANY, a Missouri corporation, and
THE GERSON COMPANIES, a Missouri corporation,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Consolidated
Identical Actions (Doc. # 27).
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). 1 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

1

The district judge to whom the oldest numbered case involved in the proposed consolidation
is assigned determines whether consolidation is proper. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1.

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 this Court’s sound discretion. Shump
v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978).
It is clear that common questions of law and fact are so similar in these two
cases such that consolidation will be appropriate and efficacious.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion To Consolidate (Doc. # 27) is GRANTED;
2. That pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Action No. 14-cv-01025-REBBNB is REASSIGNED to Judge Christine M. Arguello and Magistrate Judge Craig B.
Shaffer, and shall bear Civil Action No. 14-cv-01025-CMA-CBS;
3. That pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil
Action No. 14-cv-01025-CMA-CBS is CONSOLIDATED with Civil Action No. 14-cv00808-CMA-CBS for all purposes;
4. That all future filings in these consolidated actions shall be captioned as set
forth above.
DATED: May

14

, 2014
BY THE COURT:

________________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2