Fender et al v. Indiana State of
Filing
44
OPINION AND ORDER consolidating cases. All further entries will be made only on the lead docket, 4:14-cv-24 RL JEM. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 10/21/14. (cc: Plaintiffs)(ksp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE
WAYNE FENDER and DONNA PELOUS,
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
SARAH SAILORS, SALLY HERNANDEZ, )
ASHLEY PETERS, PATRICK MANAHAN, )
CHRISTIN BRAMLAGE, KURTIS FOUT, )
DCS, and STATE OF INDIANA,
)
Defendants.
)
CAUSE NO.: 4:14-CV-24-RL-JEM
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a State Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate Pursuant to F.R.C.P.
42(a) and Local Rule 42-2 [DE 38], filed by Defendants Sarah Sailors, Sally Hernandez, Ashley Peters,
Kurtis Fouts, Department of Child Services, and State of Indiana (the “State Defendants”) on September
22, 2014. State Defendants request that this matter be consolidated with a case filed by Plaintiffs and
additional Plaintiff Heather Mock against State of Indiana, Ashley Peters, Abigail Diener, Samantha
Dagenais, Christin Bramlage, and Analei Whitlock, cause number 4:14-CV-61-WCL-APR. None of the
other parties have responded to the motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that “[i]f 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). Consolidation
is appropriate for “cases that share the same questions of law or fact and where consolidation would not
result in prejudice to any party.” Back v. Bayh, 933 F. Supp. 738, 748 (N.D. Ind. 1996) (citing
Fleishman v. Prudential-Bache Sec., 103 F.R.D. 623, 624 (E.D. Wis. 1984)). Courts “consider such
factors as judicial economy, avoiding delay, and avoiding inconsistent or conflicting results” as well as “as
the possibility of juror confusion or administrative difficulties.” Habitat Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. Kimbell, 250
F.R.D. 390, 394 (E.D. Wis. 2008).
The Court finds that the cases involve common issues of law and fact relating to the removal of a
child from the care of Plaintiffs Fender and Pulous. Trying the cases separately would require duplication
of efforts, both on behalf of the parties and of the Court, and might result in inconsistent results.
Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court hereby GRANTS the State Defendants’
Motion to Consolidate Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 42(a) and Local Rule 42-2 [DE 38] and ORDERS
consolidation of cause numbers 4:14-CV-24-RL-JEM and 4:14-CV-61-WCL-APR.
All future filings shall be made in 4:14-CV-24-RL-JEM only.
SO ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2014.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:
All counsel of record
Plaintiffs pro se
2
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?