Strong et al v. Snyder et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting 20 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on November 19, 2008. (KM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION C.R.S. , A Minor, by and Through his Mother and Natural Guardian, Norma Michelle Hopkins v. DEANNA SNYDER and INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR CORPORATION consolidated with GEORGE STRONG, JR. and JEAN HANCOCK v. DEANNA SNYDER and INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR COMPANY consolidated with LOU E. STRONG v. DEANNA SNYDER and INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR COMPANY ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES THESE MATTERS are before the court on the motions1 of Deanna Snyder and Interstate Distributor Company, defendants in each of the above captioned matters. Plaintiffs have not responded to any of the motions and, therefore, they are granted as unopposed pursuant to Local PLAINTIFF No. 2:08cv228 KS-MTP DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFFS No. 2:08cv145KS-MTP DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF

No. 2:08cv205 KS-MTP DEFENDANTS

Docket no. [10] in civil action no. 2:08cv205, Docket no. [4] in civil action no. 2:08cv228 and Docket no. [20] in civil action no. 2:08cv145.

1

Rule 7.2(C)(2).2 Additionally, consolidation is proper pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits the court to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact, especially when doing so will avoid unnecessary costs or delay or will eliminate unnecessary repetition or confusion. Miller v. U.S. Postal Serv., 729 F.2d 1033, 1036 (5th Cir. 1984); Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 761-62 (5th Cir. 1989). Each of these three cases involves claims of the occupants of a vehicle which was involved in an motor vehicle accident with the defendants. These cases will utilize many of the same witnesses and records. The plaintiffs are represented by the same attorneys in all three cases and defendants Synder and Interstate are represented by the same attorneys in all three cases. The cases involve the same subject matter and involve many common issues. Consolidation of these cases will serve to reduce the costs and expenses of all parties. Likewise, by eliminating duplicate motions on the same issues and eliminating multiple hearings and trials, consolidation will conserve judicial time and resources. Plaintiffs have not objected to the consolidation of these matters and have not demonstrated or established any prejudice which might result if the motions were granted. Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that these matters are hereby consolidated for all purposes, including trial. All future pleadings and filings shall be filed only in cause no. 2:08cv145-KS-MTP.

Plaintiffs are reminded of their obligation to respond to motions or to file a statement that they do not intend to respond. See Local Rule 7.2(C). Failure to comply with the Local Rules may subject a party to appropriate sanctions. See Local Rule 11.2. 2

2

SO ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2008. s/ Michael T. Parker United States Magistrate Judge

3