Crescent Bank & Trust v. Cadle Co II Inc et al

Filing 21

RULING AND ORDER denying 2 Notice of Related Proceedings and Request for Consolidation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 12/13/2021. (crt,Chicola, C)

Case 6:21-cv-03961-MJJ-CBW Document 21 Filed 12/13/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 3403

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
CRESCENT BANK & TRUST

CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-3961

VERSUS

JUDGE SUMMERHAYS

CADLE CO. II, INC., ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

RULING AND ORDER
Pending before the undersigned magistrate judge is the Notice of Related
Proceedings and Request for Consolidation [Doc. 2] filed by Crescent Bank & Trust,
which seeks to consolidate the instant matter with two cases assigned to Judge
Robert R. Summerhays.1 The request for consolidation is opposed by plaintiffs Lucy
G. Sykes, Chapter 7 Trustee, and The Cadle Company, II, Inc. [Doc. 4]. For the
following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
Rule 42 allows courts to consolidate actions that have common questions of
law or fact. The plaintiffs object to the motion to consolidate, arguing that Cadle is
not a party to each of the cases sought to be consolidated, and therefore,

1

The two cases pending before Judge Summerhays are: The Cadle Company, II, LLC, et al. v.
Crescent Bank & Trust, et.al, Civil Action No. 21-1013, and The Cade Company, II, Inc., et al.
v. Crescent Bank & Trust, et al., Civil Action No. 21-1014.
1

Case 6:21-cv-03961-MJJ-CBW Document 21 Filed 12/13/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 3404

consolidation would not serve to effectively resolve the cases. A nonexhaustive list
of factors courts consider when deciding a motion to consolidate includes: (1)
whether the cases are pending in the same court, (2) whether the cases involve a
common party, (3) whether the cases involve common issues of law or fact, (4)
whether consolidation risks the possibility of prejudice or confusion, and if there is
such a risk, if the risk of inconsistent adjudications if tried separately outweighs that
risk, (5) whether consolidation will result in an unfair advantage, (6) whether
consolidation will conserve judicial resources and increase judicial efficiencies, and
(7) whether consolidation will reduce the expense of trying the case separately. See
Russo v. Alamosa Holdings, Inc., 2004 WL 579378, at *1 (N.D. Tex. 2004)
(Cummings, J.) (citing authorities).

Ashford Hosp. Prime Inc. v. Sessa Cap.

(Master) LP, 2017 WL 2955366 at *11 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2017).
In the instant case, the undersigned agrees that, because Cadle is not a party
to all of the actions sought to be consolidated, consolidation is not appropriate. All
three cases do not involve common issues of law or fact, and consolidation risks the
possibility of prejudice or confusion. Finally, consolidation will not conserve
judicial resources and increase judicial efficiencies.
Considering the foregoing, the Notice of Related Proceedings and Request for
Consolidation [Doc. 2] is DENIED.
2

Case 6:21-cv-03961-MJJ-CBW Document 21 Filed 12/13/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 3405

THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 13th day of December, 2021.

3