Paul Jones v. Client Services, Inc

Filing 26

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: "In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff's motion (Docket No. 8 ) is, with respect to a) consolidation of five cases pending before other sessions of this Court and b) the addition of those same defendants as parties, DENIED, but is, with respect to the filing of an amended complaint as against defendant Client Services, Inc., ALLOWED. So ordered."(Moore, Kellyann)

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
________________________________
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
CLIENT SERVICES, INC.,
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )
PAUL JONES,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.
13-11274-NMG

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.
Plaintiff Paul Jones, proceeding pro se, alleges that
defendant Client Services, Inc. (“CSI”) violated several state
and federal statutes by repeatedly calling his wireless phone.
Plaintiff initiated this suit by filing a Statement of Small
Claim in the Small Claims Session of Boston Municipal Court in
May, 2013.

Defendant removed to this Session shortly thereafter.

Plaintiff now moves for leave to consolidate this action
with five other actions he filed against debt collection agencies
in the Small Claims Session all of which were removed to various
Sessions of this Court.1

In addition, plaintiff moves for leave

to file an amended complaint that would (1) add as defendants

1

See Jones v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Civ. No. 1311281-FDS; Jones v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., Civ. No. 1311277-GAO; Jones v. FMA Alliance LTD, 13-cv-11286-JLT; Jones v.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Civ. No. 13-11309-RWZ; Jones
v. Central Portfolio Control, Inc., Civ. No. 13-11325-DPW.
-1-

those five entities and (2) state with greater specificity the
allegations against defendant and those other five entities.
Plaintiff’s motion, insofar as it seeks to consolidate the
related actions into this action and to accomplish the same by
adding those defendants as new parties, will be denied because
this Court cannot simply pluck matters off the dockets of other
sessions.

The Court is, however, amenable to the reassignment of

those cases to this session and consolidation pursuant to orders
of those respective sessions because it would be a waste of
judicial resources to permit the related cases to proceed as
separate cases.

The cases involve the same plaintiff and present

substantially the same questions of fact and law and, if not
consolidated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42, should be designated
as related cases under Local Rule 40.1(G) and reassigned to one
session.
Insofar as plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended
complaint against defendant CSI with greater specificity,
plaintiff’s motion will be allowed.

Because 1) the operative

complaint consists of a hand-written Statement of Small Claim, a
pleading suitable for the plaintiff’s chosen forum but not for
this United States District Court, and 2) plaintiff filed the
motion to amend promptly, the Court finds that amendment to be in
the interest of justice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

-2-

ORDER
In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion (Docket
No. 8) is, with respect to a) consolidation of five cases pending
before other sessions of this Court and b) the addition of those
same defendants as parties, DENIED, but is, with respect to the
filing of an amended complaint as against defendant Client
Services, Inc., ALLOWED.

So ordered.
/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated October 8, 2013

-3-