DHL Project & Chartering Limited v. Newlead Holding LTD et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 11 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 8/25/2016. (jah)

IN THE UNITED
FOR THE

STATES DISTRICT

COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

j
DHL

PROJECT

&

IN ADMIRALTY

CHARTERING

*

LIMITED,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

v,

*

NEWLEAD HOLDINGS LTD.;

*

NEWLEAD SHIPPING S.A.;

*

NEWLEAD BULKERS S.A.;

*
*

NEWLEAD CASTELLANO LTD.;

GRAND VENETICO INC.;

*

NEWLEAD VENETICO LTD.,

CV 416-123

*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

Presently before
Limited's
below,

motion

to

the

Court

consolidate

DHL

(Doc.

Project

11).

& Chartering

For

the

reasons

this motion is DENIED.

I.

On April
Ltd.,

is

19,

Cheyenne

instituted

the

2016,

Holdings
case

BACKGROUND

Ray Capital
Ltd.,

numbered

and

Inc.,

Oppenheim Capital

Labroy

Shiptrade

4:16-cv-00093-JRH

("Case

Ltd.,
1")

by

filing a verified complaint with this Court alleging a number of
claims

against

M/V

Newlead

Castellano,

("Vessel"), and Newlead Castellano Ltd.

1.)

Thereafter,

IMO

No.

9686338

(Case 1, Compl., Doc.

the plaintiffs amended their complaint such
i

V

that

they

now

assert

the

following

claims:

(1)

a

foreclosure

claim pursuant to Ray Capital's promissory note and the Maritime
Lien Act

and the

("Act");

(2)

preferred

a

Ship Mortgage Act,

foreclosure

mortgages

pursuant to Ray
breach of
mortgages.

and

claim

the

46 U.S.C.

pursuant

Act;

(3)

§

to

a

the

claim pursuant

to

the

seq.

plaintiffs'

foreclosure

Capital's payment of seamen's wages;

contract

et

31301,

claim

and

plaintiffs'

(4)

a

preferred

(Case 1, Am. Compl., Doc. 18.)

On May 25,

2016,

DHL Project & Chartering Limited

instituted the instant case

("Case 2") by alleging

(1)

("DHL")
a breach

of contract claim against Newlead Shipping S.A., Newlead Bulkers

S.A.,

and

against

Grand

Newlead

Venetico

Holdings

Inc.,

Ltd.

and

for

(2)

their

an

alter

control

ego

claim

of Newlead

Shipping S.A., Newlead Bulkers S.A., Newlead Castellano Limited,

Grand Venetico Inc., and Newlead Venetico Ltd.1
Doc.

1 M

21-69.)

Since that time,

(Case 2, Compl.,

DHL has filed the instant

motion asking the Court to consolidate Cases 1 and 2 because (1)
"both cases involve common questions of law and fact" and
"once

the

substitute

Vessel

res

is

for

sold,

the

the

Vessel,

sale

proceeds

against

which

will

DHL

stand

and

the

(2)

as

a

Ray

Capital [p]laintiffs both have claims." (Doc. 11 at 4.)

1

In Case 2, also on May 25, 2016, the Court directed the Clerk to issue

process of maritime attachment and garnishment for seizure of the Vessel.
(Doc.

2.)

II.

DISCUSSION

According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a),
[i]f

actions

before

the

court

involve

question of law or fact, the court may:
hearing or trial any or all matters at

a

common

(1) join for
issue in the

actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any
other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.

Here,

Cases

plaintiffs

1 and 2 have three clear similarities.

in

Case

asserted claims

1

and

the

plaintiff

in

Case

First,

2

have

the

both

against Newlead Castellano Ltd. and the Vessel.

Second, the Vessel has been attached in both cases.

Third, the

plaintiffs in Case 1 and the plaintiff in Case 2 both hope to

obtain the proceeds from the sale of the Vessel to satisfy their
underlying claims.

However,

these similarities alone do not permit the Court

to heed DHL's request and consolidate Cases 1 and 2.

At the

very least, the two cases must present a "common question of law
or fact." Yet,

respective

in evaluating the paragraphs within the cases'

complaints,

allegations.

the

Moreover,

Court

sees

no

common

factual

though breach of contract claims have

been alleged in both cases, the breach of contract claim in Case
1 arises out of a preferred ship mortgage, whereas the claim in
Case 2 arises out of a charter party.

Hence, the claims do not

present the legal commonality needed.
will not consolidate Cases 1 and 2.

TDS

Telecomm.

Corp.,

Nos.

Accordingly,

the Court

See Halo Wireless,

2:ll-cv-158,

1:ll-cv-2749,

Inc. v.

2012

WL

246393,
to

at

*2

consolidate

trial
when

court
(1)

and (2)

(N.D.

Ga.

cases

is

....

the

actions

a

Jan.

committed

trial

involve

light

of

the

motion to consolidate

("Although

to

the

court

may

a

common

sound

the

decision

discretion

consolidate

question

of

of

cases
law

or

the

only
fact

CONCLUSION

foregoing,
(Doc.

the

Court

DENIES

Plaintiff's

11) .

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta,
August,

2012)

they are pending before the same court.").

III.

In

26,

Georgia,

this

&?%**^ day of

2016.

HONOHAME J. RANDAL HALL
UNITED/ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA