Hughes v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Cases (RDB-16-806, ECF 17); consolidating Civil Action No. RDB-16-806 and Civil Action No. RDB-16-2311 with RDB-16-2311 designated as the lead case; denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (RDB-16-806, ECF 16); directing Clerk to close Civil Action No. RDB-16-806; and directing Counsel for Defendants to file under SEAL a complete, unredacted copy of the parties' Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 11/2/2016. (c/m 11/2/16 bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
PATRICK J. HUGHES
*
Plaintiff,

*

v.

Civil Action No.

RDB-16-806

Civil Action No.

RDB-16-2311

*
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,

*

Defendants.
*
and

*

PATRICK J. HUGHES
*
Plaintiff,

*

v.
*
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,

*

Defendants.
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Currently pending in these related contract actions filed by pro se plaintiff Patrick J.
Hughes (“Hughes” or “Plaintiff”) against defendants J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., and DOES I through X (collectively “Defendants”) are several motions,
including plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases (RDB-16-806, ECF No. 17). Defendants
have filed a Limited Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Consolidate. (RDB-16806, ECF No. 20.)

The parties’ submissions have been reviewed, and no hearing is

necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons that follow, Civil Action

No. RDB-16-806 and Civil Action No. RDB-16-2311 shall be consolidated, and this case
shall proceed as set forth below.

DISCUSSION
I.

Motion to Consolidate

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), actions before the court may be consolidated when they
“involve a common question of law or fact.” “District courts have broad discretion under
F[ed]. R. Civ. P. 42(a) to consolidate causes pending in the same district.” A/S J. Ludwig
Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Const. Co., 559 F.2d 928, 933 (4th Cir. 1977). Here, Civil Action
No. RDB-16-806 and Civil Action No. RDB-16-2311 involve the same plaintiff, at least one
common defendant, and arise from the same underlying transaction: the settlement
agreement between plaintiff and defendant Chase. See RDB-16-806, ECF No. 1, RDB-162311, ECF No. 2. As these cases involve common questions of law and fact, they will be
consolidated.1 Accordingly, plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate (RDB-16-806, ECF No. 17) is
GRANTED.

II.

Pending Motions to Dismiss

There are also two Motions to Dismiss pending in this case. (RDB-16-806, ECF No.
5; RDB-16-2311, ECF No. 11.) These motions will be resolved jointly subsequent to
consolidation of the two cases.

To be clear, this Order does not affect the ongoing foreclosure action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, which has not been filed in this Court and over which this Court has no jurisdiction. See RDB-16-806,
ECF No. 5-4.
1

The Clerk of Court is directed to docket the Motion (ECF No. 5), Response in
Opposition (ECF No. 10), and Reply (ECF No. 13) from Civil Action No. RDB-16-806 in
the consolidated RDB-16-2311 case, where the Motion will remain pending.2

III.

The Parties’ Settlement Agreement

It is apparent from their filings that the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement
in January 2016. See RDB-16-806, ECF No. 5-2; RDB-16-2311, ECF No. 2-1. However,
the nature, scope, and terms of the Settlement Agreement remain undisclosed to the Court.
To aid the Court’s resolution of the pending Motions to Dismiss—which, it appears,
may hinge on the terms of the Settlement Agreement—the parties are directed to file a
complete, unredacted copy of the Settlement Agreement with the Court. To preserve the
confidentiality of the agreement, the filing shall be made under seal.
To expedite this filing, counsel for defendants shall file a complete, unredacted copy
of the Settlement Agreement under seal via CM/ECF no later 5:00 p.m. on Friday,
November 4, 2016. In addition, counsel for defendants shall provide a copy of this
submission to plaintiff.

In light of the consolidation and subsequent filings in RDB-16-2311, plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Sur-Reply (RDB-16-806, ECF No. 16) is DENIED.

2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases (RDB-16-806, ECF No. 17) is
GRANTED;
2. Civil Action No. RDB-16-806 and Civil Action No. RDB-16-2311 are
CONSOLIDATED, with RDB-16-2311 designated as the lead case;
3. The Clerk of Court SHALL DOCKET defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss,
the Response in Opposition, and the Reply (RDB-16-806, ECF Nos. 5, 10, and
13) in Civil Action No. RDB-16-2311, where the Motion shall remain pending;
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (RDB-16-806, ECF No. 16) is
DENIED;
5. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE Civil Action No. RDB-16-806;
6. Counsel for defendants SHALL FILE UNDER SEAL a complete, unredacted
copy of the parties’ Settlement Agreement no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday,
November 4, 2016;
7. Counsel for defendants SHALL TRANSMIT to plaintiff a copy of their sealed
filing of the Settlement Agreement;
8. The Clerk of the Court SHALL TRANSMIT a copy of this Memorandum Order
to Plaintiff;
9. The parties are directed to make any future filings in Civil Action No. RDB-162311 ONLY.

Dated:

November 2, 2016

_____/s/_______________________
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge