Computer and Engineering Services, Inc. et al v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan

Filing 26

ORDER denying 14 Sealed Motion For Consolidation. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
COMPUTER AND ENGINEERING SERVICES,
INC. and C.E.S., INC. and TRILLIUM
STAFFING WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 12-15611
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
MICHIGAN,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR CONSOLIDATION (ECF NO. 14)
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for consolidation, filed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) on February 1, 2013. Plaintiffs ask the
Court to consolidate this action with cases before the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts
involving the same legal issues and facts.1 Alternatively, Plaintiffs request that the Court
reassign this matter to Judge Roberts as a companion matter pursuant to Eastern District
of Michigan Local Rule 83.11(b).
Even if this Court agrees with Plaintiffs that consolidation of the pending matters
would be beneficial, it lacks the authority to grant the requested relief. The Court cannot
order consolidation of cases not pending before it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) (“If actions

1

As of early January 2013, there were at least nineteen such cases pending in this
District. Ten of those cases are on Judge Roberts’ docket. The remaining cases are
assigned to other judges in the court.

before the court . . .”) (emphasis added). Local Rule 83.11 does not permit a judge to
unilaterally reassign a case to another judge. See E.D. Mich. LR 83.11(7)(D) (“When it
becomes apparent to the Judge to whom a case is assigned and to a Judge having an
earlier case number that two cases are companion cases, upon consent of the Judge
having the earlier case number, the Judge shall sign an order reassigning the case to the
Judge having the earlier case number.”). Judge Roberts does not consent to the
reassignment of this case to her.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ motion for consolidation (ECF No. 14) is
DENIED.
Dated: April 19, 2013

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

2