Scott et al v. Vantage Corporation et al

Filing 101

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying (76 in 1:17-cv-00448-MPT) MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Douglas A. Duncan. Signed by Judge Mary Pat Thynge on 8/7/2018. Associated Cases: 1:17-cv-00448-MPT, 1:18-cv-00288-GMS(fms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
TARA SCOTT and WILSON CARTER,
:
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF
:
THE BAILEY MIDDLETON CARTER
:
2009 TRUST, THE MARY WILSON
:
CARTER 2009 TRUST, and THE
:
WILSON M. CARTER 1988 TRUST,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
: C. A. No. 17-448-MPT
:
VANTAGE CORPORATION, VANTAGE
:
ADVISORY MANAGEMENT, LLC, VF (X) :
LP, TRADELOGIX, LLC, BRIAN ASKEW, :
and GERALD FINEGOLD,
:
:
Defendants.
:
__________________________________ :
:
DOUGLAS A. DUNCAN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
: C. A. No. 18-288-GMS
:
VANTAGE CORPORATION, VANTAGE
:
ADVISORY MANAGEMENT, LLC, VF (X) :
LP, TRADELOGIX, LLC, BRIAN ASKEW, :
and GERALD FINEGOLD,
:
:
Defendants.
:
__________________________________ :
Memorandum Order
A motion for consolidation was filed on April 25, 2018 in these related matters on
behalf of plaintiff Duncan. D.I. 76 in 17-448-MPT and D.I. 15 in 18-288-GMS. The
Scott matter was filed on April 20, 2017, while the Duncan matter was filed almost a
year later on February 20, 2018. As noted in the motion, the original complaints are
mirror images of each other. See D.I. 76 at ¶ 5 in 17-448-MPT. However, in Scott,

plaintiffs filed a propose second amended complaint which includes allegations not
asserted by plaintiff in Duncan.1 A decision by this court on plaintiffs’ second motion to
amend could change the landscape of the Scott matter.
Plaintiffs in these cases are represented by two different law firms. The Scott
matter was assigned to this judge and the Duncan case was assigned to Judge Sleet. It
is unclear why these related matters were assigned to two different judges. The motion
to consolidate is opposed by plaintiffs in the Scott case. See D.I. 86 in 17-448-MPT and
D.I. 17 in 18-288-GMS. In Scott, a scheduling order was entered on February 28, 2018,
while no scheduling order has been entered in Duncan.2 The parties in Scott began
discovery, including the filing and answering of multiple requests for production and
interrogatories, along with serving subpoenas on third parties. According to the docket
in Duncan, it does not appear that any discovery has occurred.3
Most importantly, only the parties in Scott consented to the jurisdiction of this
Magistrate Judge: the parties in Duncan have not. D.I. 5.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Duncan’s motion to consolidate is denied in 17-448-MPT.
Dated: August 7, 2018

1

/s/ Mary Pat Thynge
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge

D.I. 69 in 17-448-MPT. The motion to amend is opposed by defendants in
Scott. D.I. 77 and has been fully briefed.
2
The court notes that the scheduling order in Scott will be modified in the near
future, resulting in extensions to the original scheduling order, but at this stage, the
modifiation does not change the court’s conclusion.
3
That the Scott matter was temporarily stayed for a period of time,
approximately seventy (70) days due to the Vantage defendants’ bankruptcy
proceedings, although relevant, does not affect the court’s decision.