Hammers v. Hathorne

Filing 12

ORDER consolidating cases Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on February 8, 2008 (Harris, M.)

Hammers v. Hathorne

Doc. 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION TIMOTHY HAMMERS versus DEMETRIUS HATHORNE PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-cv-90-KS-MTP DEFENDANT consolidated with TIMOTHY HAMMERS versus T.C. COOLEY PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-cv-91-KS-MTP DEFENDANT consolidated with TIMOTHY HAMMERS versus JERRY Q. MAGEE PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-cv-92-KS-MTP DEFENDANT

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES This matter is before the court on plaintiff's motion [15] filed in the Magee matter,1 seeking consolidation with the Hathorne2 and Cooley3 matters. For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that the motion should be granted. Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint

1 2 3

Hammers v. Magee, docket no. 2:07cv92. Hammers v. Hathorne, docket no. 2:07cv90. Hammers v. Cooley, docket no. 2:07cv91.

Dockets.Justia.com

hearing or trial of any or all of the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay." Plaintiff argues that the three cases "involve the same incident and occurred at the same time," and that consolidation "will assist in judicial economy and avoid unnecessary delay and cost of litigation." Having reviewed the complaints in the three separate actions, this court agrees that consolidation would be appropriate. The court further notes that neither defendant Magee nor defendant Cooley (both represented by the same attorney) has objected to consolidation.4 IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that these matters are hereby consolidated for all purposes. All future pleadings and filings shall be filed only in cause no. 2:07cv90. SO ORDERED on this, the 8th day of February, 2008. s/ Michael T. Parker United States Magistrate Judge

4

It appears that defendant Hathorne had not yet been served with process. 2