THARP et al v. CATRON INTERIOR SYSTEMS, INC

Filing 62

ORDER denying 55 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/19/2015. (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DAVID THARP, DOUG ROBINSON, WILLIAM NIX,
JOE COAR, DOUGLAS J. McCARRON, and
INDIANA/KENTUCKY/OHIO REGIONAL COUNCIL
OF CARPENTERS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CATRON INTERIOR SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:12-cv-01870-TWP-DML
)
)
)
)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CASES
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Consolidation of Case No. 1:14cv-1359-TWP-TAB with the matter herein. (Filing No. 55).

The Court being fully advised

hereby DENIES the Motion.
Rule 42 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the
court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the
actions; it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to
avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
The purpose of Rule 42(a) “is to give the court broad discretion to decide how cases on its docket
are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched with expedition and economy
while providing justice to the parties.”

Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, §

2381 (1971).
As noted by both parties, the Court has broad discretion in determining whether
consolidation is practical.

While it is true that there are common issues of law among the two

cases, here, consolidation does not offer efficiency and convenience because the cases are at

different stages of litigation regarding discovery and factual issues and may involve different
witnesses of fact.

Case No. 1:12-cv-1870-TWP-DML is set for hearing on damages on October

1, 2015, and the only issue of fact concerns the results of the court ordered audits.

On the other

hand, a dispositive motion is pending and discovery is still ongoing in Case No. 1:14-cv-1359TWP-TAB.

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that consolidation would delay the

efficient disposition of this case.
For these reasons Plaintiffs’ Motion for Consolidation (Filing No. 55) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Date:

8/19/2015

DISTRIBUTION:
Alan W. Roles
COLEMAN ROLES & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
[e-mail]
Thomas Edward Moss
PAUL T. BERKOWITZ & ASSOCIATES
[e-mail]
Paul T. Berkowitz
PAUL T. BERKOWITZ & ASSOCIATES
[e-mail]
Suzanne C. Dyer
PAUL T. BERKOWITZ & ASSOCIATES
[e-mail]

2