Seckinger v. Bank of America
Filing
4
ORDER consolidating Equifax (CV415-309), TransUnion (CV415-310), and Experian (CV415-308), into this case (CV415-306). Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 1/12/2016. (ca)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
MALLIE J. SECKINGER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. CV415-306
V.
BANK OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
ORDER
Mallie Seckinger, proceeding pro se,
has -- via four
simultaneously filed lawsuits -- sued his credit card company
(Bank of America) and three credit reporting agencies for alleged
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") violations.' He claims that
Bank of America provided false information to the reporting
agencies, see doc. 1 at 1, who then refused to note Seckinger's
debt dispute on his credit report.
See Equifax, doc. 1 at 1-2;
TransUnion, doc. 1 at 1-2; Experian, doc. 1 at 1-2.
1
See doc. 1; Seckinger v. TransUnion LLC, No. CV41S-310, doc. 1 (S.D.
Ga. Nov. 16, 2015) ("TransUnion"); Seckinger v. Equifax Info. Sen's., LLC,
No. CV415-309 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 16, 2015) ("Equifa*"); Seckinger v. Experian
Info. Sols, Inc., No. CV415-308, doc. 1 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 16, 2015)
("Experia,?').
"If actions before the court involve a common question of
law or fact, the court may. . . consolidate the actions." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 42(a)(2).
District courts have broad discretion under [Rule 42(a)] to
consolidate causes pending in the same district." In re
Dearborn Marine Serv, Inc., 499 F.2d 263, 270-71 (5th
Cir.1974); see also Young v City of Augusta, 59 F.3d
1160, 1168 (11th Cir. 1995) (explaining that Rule 42(a)(2)
is "permissive and vests a purely discretionary power in the
district court") (internal quotation marks and citation
. In fact, "[d]istrict court judges in [the Eleventh
omitted).
Circuit] have been urged to make good use of Rule 42(a)
in order to expedite the trial and eliminate unnecessary
repetition and confusion." Young, 59 F.3d at 1169
(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
..
Gholston v. Humphrey, 2012 WL 5383124 at *1 (M.D. Ga. Sept.
24, 2012) adopted, 2012 WL 5383122 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 1, 2012)
(footnote omitted).
This case, along with the Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union
cases (collectively, the "Credit Card Cases"), all involve the same
set of facts and plead similar claims. Hence, the Clerk is
DIRECTED to consolidate them before the undersigned. 2
2
Local Rule 3. 1, in situations distinct from but analytically similar to this
one, contemplates consolidating related matters before the judge assigned
to the first case docketed.
FJ
There's more. On the same day that he filed the instant
cases, Seckinger also filed separate cases against his mortgage
company and two credit reporting agencies, also for alleged FCRA
violations.
See Seckinger v. Equifax Info Sen's.,
LLC, No.
CV415-304 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 16, 2015) ("Equifax IF'); Seckinger v.
Trans Union LLC, No. CV415-305 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 16, 2015)
(" TransUnion IF'); Seckinger v. Central Mortgage Co., No. CV415307 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 16, 2015) ("Central Mortgage") (collectively,
the "Mortgage Cases"). The Mortgage Cases, much like the
Credit Card Cases, share the same set of facts (Seckinger's
mortgage company provided false information to the reporting
agencies, who then refused to note his dispute on their reports)
and plead related claims. They too, then, warrant consolidation
within their respective groupings (i.e., consolidate the Mortgage
Cases into Equifax II (CV415-304), while the Credit Card Cases
shall be consolidated into this case, CV415-306).
The Mortgage Cases, however, are not before the
undersigned (two are before Judge William T. Moore and one is
before Judge J. Randal Hall). Although the two case groupings
3
(Credit Card and Mortgage) are not factually similar enough to
warrant consolidation of all seven Seckinger complaints, they
share a pro se plaintiff who has moved for IFP status in each case
based on the same financial data. To guard against the risk
(however small) of different judges arriving at different results,
the Clerk is DIRECTED to reassign the Mortgage Cases (Equifax II
(CV415-304), TransUnion II (CV415-305), and Central Mortgage
(CV415-307)) to the undersigned in addition to consolidating
them.
As discussed above, Seckinger moves for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (IFP) in all seven cases. Doc. 2; Trans Union,
doc. 2; Equifax, doc. 2; Experian, doc. 2; Equifax II, doc. 2;
TransUnion II, doc 2; Central Mortgage, doc. 2. While a plaintiff
need not be absolutely destitute in order to proceed IFP, Adkins
v, EL Dupont de Nemours, 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), the fact
that financing his own litigation may cause some difficulty is not
sufficient to relieve Seckinger of the obligation to pay his own way
where it is possible to do so without undue hardship.
40.
4
It at 339-
On his IFP applications, Seckinger declares that he had
"take-home pay" of $4,521.00 in 2014, received a settlement of
some kind for $4,250.00 in 2014, and that his wife earned
$42,324.00.
See, e.g., doc. 2 at 1. He currently has three
cars, about $22,000 in debt owed to friends and family, and
monthly expenses of $4,932.00.
id at 2. Yet, Seckinger
currently has $2,200 in cash or a checking account, id, which is
more than sufficient to pay the Court's $400 filing fee for each
consolidated case without causing undue hardship.
Adkins, 335
U.S. at 340.
To summarize, the Clerk is DIRECTED to:
1. Reassign Equifax II (CV415-304),
305),
TransUnion II (CV415-
Central Mortgage (CV415-307); Experian (CV415-
308); Equifax (CV415-309); and TransUnion (CV415-310)
to the undersigned;
2. Consolidate
Trans Union II
(CV415-305), and
Central
Mortgage (CV415-307) into Equifax ii (CV415-304); and
3. Consolidate Equifax (CV415-309), TransUnion (CV415-310),
and Experian (CV415-308), into this case (CV415-306).
5
SecT:ingers IFP motions
Trans U1
doc. 2;
ii
all
seven cases
(doc. 2;
doc. 2; Equifax, doc. 2; Eierian, doc. 2; Equifax 11,
TrnsUnion I!, doc. 2; Central Mortgage, doc. 2) are
DENIED. He must pay the fiU $400 filing fee for each of the two
consolidated cases (hence, $800)
within
14 days of the date this
Order is served or face disniissaI.
SO ORDERED, this
~1 (I a/y/"o f 1nuv5fib16.
/
1
WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE
LISA GOØ
UNIT"ST T. DISTRICT COURT
SOUTAERN STRICT OF GEORGIA
Because the Court is forming two crnsoIidted cases out of Seckinger's
seven original complaints, it will only require hirri to pay two filing fees, not
seven.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?