Superior Services, Inc. v. Universal Warranty Corp. et al

Filing 50

ORDER granting the parties' August 19, 2016 (49) Stipulation to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Management and Discovery Only in case 8:15-cv-00396-RFR-TDT; (49) in case 8:15-cv-00398-RFR-TDT; (49) in case 8:15-cv-00400-RFR-TDT; (48) in case 8:15-cv-00401-RFR-TDT; (49) in case 8:15-cv-00402-RFR-TDT; (23) in case 8:16-cv-00346-RFR-TDT.The ten above-captioned cases are consolidated for purposes of discovery and pretrial management only. Case No. 8:15CV396 continues to be des ignated as the "Lead Case." Case numbers 8:15CV398, 8:15CV400, 8:15CV401, and 8:15CV402 continue designated as "Member Cases" and case numbers 8:16CV276, 8:16CV328, 8:16CV346, 8:16CV361, and 8:16CV362 are hereby designated as &qu ot;Member Cases." The courts CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this en d, the parties are instructed to file all further documents related to discovery (except those described in paragraph 5) in the Lead Case, No. 8:15CV396, and to select the option "yes" in response to the Systems question whether to spread the text. The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; or to file items related to service of process. If a party believes an item in addi tion to those described in paragraph 4 should not be filed in all the consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the item in one or more member cases. The motion must be filed in all the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. The August 12, 2016, Protective Order (Filing No 45 in case 8:15CV396) will apply to the newly consolidated cases. The deadlines and discovery limitations contained in the June 20, 2016, Order for Initial Progression of Case (Filing No. 40 in case 8:15CV396) shall apply equally to all of the above-captioned cases. Member Cases: 8:15-cv-00396-RFR-TDT et al. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
SUPERIOR SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8:15CV396

vs.
ORDER
UNIVERSAL WARRANTY CORP. and
ALLY INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
ACI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
8:15CV398
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNIVERSAL WARRANTY CORP.;
MIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORP.;
and
ALLY INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
M.S.E. DISTRIBUTING, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8:15CV400

vs.
UNIVERSAL WARRANTY CORP. and
ALLY INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
THOMAS HANLON, d/b/a
Dealer Direct,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNIVERSAL WARRANTY CORP., and
ALLY INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.

8:15CV401

AUTOMOTIVE DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8:15CV402

vs.
UNIVERSAL WARRANTY CORP., and
ALLY INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
EARL DANIELS, d/b/a
Professional Dealer Services,

8:16CV276

Plaintiff,
vs.
UNIVERSAL WARRANTY CORP., and
ALLY INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
GAINES FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
8:16CV328
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNIVERSAL WARRANTY CORP., and
ALLY INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
INSURED DEALER SERVICES, INC.,
8:16CV346
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNIVERSAL WARRANTY CORP., and
ALLY INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.

2

VISION MARKETING GROUP &
ASSOCIATES, INC.,
f/k/a Vision Marketing Group &
Associates LLC,
d/b/a Vision Marketing,

8:16CV361

Plaintiff,
vs.
UNIVERSAL WARRANTY CORP., and
ALLY INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
AUTO CARE EXTENDED SERVICE
CORPORATION,
d/b/a Automotive Concepts,

8:16CV362

Plaintiff,
vs.
UNIVERSAL WARRANTY CORP., and
ALLY INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on the parties’ August 19, 2016, Stipulation to
Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Management and Discovery Only (filed in all ten cases).
The parties state there are common issues of fact and law raised in these lawsuits.
Generally, these ten lawsuits allege claims for breach of contract and other claims
based on vehicle service and warranty contracts and other financial services products
purchased by motor vehicle dealers. The parties also agree consolidation for pretrial
management and discovery will result in efficiencies for the parties and the court.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides: “If actions before the court involve
a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all
matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders
to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42. “Consolidation of separate
actions presenting a common issue of law or fact is permitted under Rule 42 as a matter
of convenience and economy in judicial administration. The district court is given broad
discretion to decide whether consolidation would be desirable and the decision
3

inevitably is contextual.” 9 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice &
Procedure § 2383 (2d ed. 1994). Whether to grant a Rule 42(a) motion to consolidate
is within the sound discretion of the court.

United States Envtl. Prot. Agency v.

Green Forest, 921 F.2d 1394, 1402-03 (8th Cir. 1990). The “court [must] weigh the
saving of time and effort that consolidation under Rule 42(a) would produce against any
inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause . . . .” Wright & Miller, supra, §
2383. “[D]istrict courts generally take a favorable view of consolidation . . . .”

Id.

Furthermore, “[a]ctions involving the same parties are apt candidates for consolidation.”
Id. § 2384.

However, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b), consolidation is considered

inappropriate “if it leads to inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party.”
EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 1998).
Upon review of the cases, the court is convinced these actions involve the same
defendants and the same issues. Additionally, the cases involve common questions of
law and fact. Due to the similarity in the cases, the parties will likely present similar
motions and arguments during discovery. Consolidation during the discovery phase will
avoid duplicative parallel activities. Consolidation for discovery will promote the goals of
efficient use of judicial resources without leading to inconvenience, delay, unfair
prejudice, or additional expense. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The parties’ August 19, 2016, Stipulation to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial

Management and Discovery Only (Filing No. 49 in 8:15CV396, 8:15CV398, 8:15CV400,
and 8:15CV402; Filing No. 48 in 8:15CV401; Filing No. 23 in 8:16CV346) is granted.
2.

The ten above-captioned cases are consolidated for purposes of

discovery and pretrial management only.
3.

Case No. 8:15CV396 continues to be designated as the “Lead Case.”

Case numbers 8:15CV398, 8:15CV400, 8:15CV401, and 8:15CV402 continue
designated as “Member Cases” and case numbers 8:16CV276, 8:16CV328,
8:16CV346, 8:16CV361, and 8:16CV362 are hereby designated as “Member Cases.”
4.

The court’s CM/ECF System has the capacity for “spreading” text among

the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will
4

automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are instructed to file
all further documents related to discovery (except those described in paragraph 5) in the
Lead Case, No. 8:15CV396, and to select the option “yes” in response to the System’s
question whether to spread the text.
5.

The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints,

amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; or to
file items related to service of process.
6.

If a party believes an item in addition to those described in paragraph 4

should not be filed in all the consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to
file the item in one or more member cases.

The motion must be filed in all the

consolidated cases using the spread text feature.
7.

The August 12, 2016, Protective Order (Filing No 45 in case 8:15CV396)

will apply to the newly consolidated cases.
8.

The deadlines and discovery limitations contained in the June 20, 2016,

Order for Initial Progression of Case (Filing No. 40 in case 8:15CV396) shall apply
equally to all of the above-captioned cases.
Dated this 22nd day of August, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge

5