Global Egg Corporation v. United States Surety Company et al

Filing 8

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Consolidate Cases. The Clerk is directed to CONSOLIDATE Case No. 8:13-cv-2844-T-33TBM and Case No. 8:13-cv-1207-T-33TGW for all further proceedings. This action shall proceed under the lead case of 8:13-cv-1207-T-33TGW, and all future pleadings shall be filed in that case. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE Case No. 8:13-cv-2844-T-33TBM. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/8/2014. (CH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES SURETY COMPANY,
PAUL HOWARD CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, and UNITED STATES
SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-1207-T-33TGW

JOSEPH EDGAR and GLOBAL EGG
CORP.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
GLOBAL EGG CORP. and JOSEPH
EDGAR,
Counter-Claimants,
v.
PAUL HOWARD CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, UNITED STATES
SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
and UNITED STATES SURETY
COMPANY,
Counter-Defendants.
_______________________________/

GLOBAL EGG CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES SURETY COMPANY

Case No. 8:13-cv-2844-T-33TBM

and PAUL HOWARD CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court in consideration of
Global Egg Corporation and Joseph Edgar’s Amended Motion for
Consolidation of Cases, filed on March 17, 2014.

(Case No.

8:13-cv-1207 Doc. # 66; Case No. 8:13-cv-2844 Doc. # 7). 1 The
Motion seeks to consolidate Case No. 8:13-cv-2844, filed on
November 6, 2013, with an earlier-filed action, Case No. 8:13cv-1207, filed on May 7, 2013.
The instant Motion was filed on March 17, 2014. Pursuant
to Local Rule 3.01(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6(b), the deadline for a party in either action to file a
response in opposition to the Motion was, at the latest, April
3, 2014.

No party filed such a response to the Motion within

the time provided by the Rules.

Accordingly, the Court

considers the Motion to be unopposed.
Discussion
Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

1

42(a)

states:

“If

Global Egg and Edgar filed the instant Motion in both Case
No. 8:13-cv-1207 and Case No. 8:13-cv-2844. For clarity, the
Court will cite to the Motion as Doc. # 66, the docket number
assigned to the Motion in Case No. 8:13-cv-1207.

2

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.”
In Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., the Eleventh
Circuit noted that Rule 42 “is a codification of a trial
court’s inherent managerial power ‘to control the disposition
of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort
for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” 776 F.2d 1492,
1495 (11th Cir. 1985)(quoting In re Air Crash Disaster at
Fla. Everglades, 549 F.2d 1006, 1012 (5th Cir. 1977)).
A trial court’s decision to consolidate similar cases is
purely discretionary. Id.

However, in determining whether to

employ the consolidation provisions of Rule 42(a), Fed. R.
Civ. P., the trial court must assess:
[W]hether the specific risks of prejudice and
possible confusion are overborne by the risk
of
inconsistent
adjudications
of
common
factual and legal issues, the burden on
parties, witnesses and available judicial
resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the
length of time required to conclude multiple
suits as against a single one, and the
relative expense to all concerned of the
single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives.

3

Hendrix, 776 F.2d at 1495.
As Global Egg and Edgar explain within the Motion, “the
counterclaim

[in

Case

No.

8:13-cv-1207]

contains

the

identical claims under the Miller Act, breach of contract and
quantum meruit, as [Case No. 8:13-cv-2844].”
2).

(Doc. # 66 at

The Motion thus requests that this case be consolidated

“in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency.”

(Id.).

Global Egg and Edgar additionally explain that “the outcome
of [Case No. 8:13-cv-1207] will also determine the outcome of
[Case No. 8:13-cv-2844], and it is requested that [Case No.
8:13-cv-2844] be consolidated and stayed to allow the course
of the main case to resolve.”

(Id.).

While the Court agrees that consolidation is appropriate
in this case, the Court is unclear as to the basis for Global
Egg and Edgar’s request for a “stay” regarding the claims
asserted in Case No. 8:13-cv-2844.

If the claims in Case No.

8:13-cv-2844 truly are “identical” to the counterclaim in
Case

No.

8:13-cv-1207,

the

Court

determines

that

it

is

suitable to consolidate the cases so that this entire matter
will proceed under the first filed case of 8:13-cv-1207.

Any

request relating to a stay of certain claims in that action
should be filed as a separate Motion in accordance with the
Local Rules of this Court.

4

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The Clerk is directed to CONSOLIDATE Case No. 8:13-cv2844-T-33TBM and Case No. 8:13-cv-1207-T-33TGW for all
further proceedings.

(2)

This action shall proceed under the lead case of 8:13cv-1207-T-33TGW, and all future pleadings shall be filed
in that case.

(2)

The Clerk is directed to CLOSE Case No. 8:13-cv-2844-T33TBM.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 8th

day of April, 2014.

Copies: All Counsel of Record

5