Milam v. North Panola School District et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Jane M Virden on 1/9/12. (ncb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION

UNTARIOUS SIMMONS

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11CV00245-WAP-JMV

NORTH PANOLA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

Consolidated With
CATINA HINES on behalf of GREGARIOUS HINES,
a minor
v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11CV00246-WAP-JMV

NORTH PANOLA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

Consolidated With
DYLAN HALL a minor, by and through his
Mother and Next Friend, Linda Hall
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11CV00247-WAP-JMV

NORTH PANOLA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

Consolidated With
AKINDRE BROOKS a minor, by and through his
Mother and Next Friend, Brenda Brooks
v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11CV00248-WAP-JMV

NORTH PANOLA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

Consolidated With
KIZZY MILAM on behalf of CORDARIUS MILAM,
a minor
v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11CV00249-WAP-JMV

NORTH PANOLA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
Consolidated With

DEFENDANTS

GREGORY COLEY a minor, by and through his
Mother and Next Friend, JoANN COLEY
v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11CV00250-WAP-JMV

NORTH PANOLA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

Consolidated With
BRANDON BROWN a minor, by and through his
Mother and Next Friend, GLORIA HENDERSON
v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11CV00251-WAP-JMV

NORTH PANOLA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
Before the court are motions filed by the defendants in the above styled cases for
consolidation of these cases under FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). Specifically, the defendants seek an order
consolidating these cases on the grounds that the individual actions arise out of the same incident,
seek the same relief, and involve the same attorneys. The individual plaintiffs do not dispute this,
and all respond that they agree to consolidation to the extent that the cases are consolidated for
discovery purposes. The plaintiffs object to consolidation for trial purposes, however, claiming
that such consolidation will strip them of their individual rights to prove damages, recover for
individual harm, and present their own case to a jury.
The plaintiffs’ perception of the matter is flawed. While consolidation works to join
separate actions into one case for administrative purposes, each individual action retains its
separate character, and no plaintiff is deprived of his right to a jury trial or the right to prove his
own case. See Miller v. U.S. Postal Service, 729 F.2d 1033, 1036 (5th Cir. 2004). Ultimately, no
plaintiff has presented the court with any ground beyond conclusory statements why these cases
should not be consolidated for all purposes. Nevertheless, this order is without prejudice to any

2

plaintiff’s right to seek a separate trial within seven (7) days of the close of the discovery period,
should adequate grounds arise. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the defendants’ motion to consolidate is hereby GRANTED;
2. That the above styled cases are consolidated for all purposes;
3. That Untarius Simmons v. North Panola School District, Cause No. 2:11cv245-WAPJMV, is hereby designated as the lead case;
4. That counsel are directed to indicate in the caption of all documents filed with the court
the lead case heading followed by all consolidated case headings and the words “consolidated
with” directly under the lead case heading and between all consolidated case headings;
5. That all filings shall be made in the lead case;1 and
6. That any motion under FED. R. CIV. P. 42(b) is due within 7 days of the close of
discovery.
This 9th day of January, 2012.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

However, counsel are advised to select the option to “spread” filings to all other cases
when prompted to do so in the ECF system.

3