Wilbur-Ellis Company v. Hartmann
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Hartmann Hay case and the Wilbur-Ellis case are consolidated. The Hartmann Hay case is designated as the lead case with Hartmann Hay designated as the lead plaintiff. The Rule 26(f) report is amended as provided in Case No. 8:16CV123, Filing No. 27 at 3-4. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (GJG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
HARTMANN HAY COMPANY, LLC,
WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY, a
KENT HARTMANN, an individual, )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a stipulation from
Hartmann Hay Company, LLC (“Hartmann Hay”), Kent Hartmann
(“Hartmann”), and Wilbur-Ellis Company, n/k/a Wilbur-Ellis
Company LLC (“Wilbur-Ellis”).
The parties seek to consolidate
Hartmann Hay Co., LLC v. Wilbur-Ellis Co., Case No. 8:16CV123
(“Hartmann Hay Case”) and Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kent Hartmann,
8:16CV125 (“Wilbur-Ellis Case”).
See Case No. 8:16CV123, Filing
No. 27 and Case No. 8:16CV125, Filing No. 22.
After review of
the stipulation and relevant law the Court finds as follows.
Hartmann Hay initially filed the Hartmann Hay case in
the District Court of Hall County, Nebraska.
8:16CV123, Filing No. 1-1.
See Case No.
On March 23, 2016, Wilbur-Ellis
removed the Hartmann Hay Case to this Court (Case No. 8:16CV123,
Filing No. 1).
Also on March 23, 2016, Wilbur-Ellis filed the
Wilbur-Ellis case against Hartmann, a member of Hartmann Hay, in
See Case No. 8:16CV125, Filing No. 1.
First, the parties seek to consolidate the Hartmann Hay
case and the Wilbur-Ellis case with the Hartmann Hay case
designated as the lead case.
The parties agree that the two
cases share common issues of law and fact making consolidation
appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) (Case No. 8:16CV123,
Filing No. 27 at 2 and Case No. 8:16CV125, Filing No. 22 at 2).
Second, the parties agree that “Hartmann Hay shall be the lead
Plaintiff in the Consolidated Case with the initial burden of
proof on its claims at trial.”
Third, the parties agreed to
and proposed deadlines for the progression of the consolidated
case (Id. at 2-3).
Finally, the parties agreed to and proposed
to amend the Rule 26(f) Report to include “discussion of the
elements of [defendant’s] Tenth, Eleven and Twelfth Affirmative
Defenses that were inadvertently omitted from the PDF when
Id. at 3-4.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows for
consolidation of cases involving common issues of law or fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
“The district court is given broad
discretion to decide whether consolidation would be desirable and
the decision inevitably is contextual.”
Cisler v. Paul A.
Willsie Co., Case No. 8:09CV365, 2010 WL 3237222, at *2 (D. Neb.
Aug. 13, 2010).
After review of the matter, the Court concludes that
consolidation of the Hartmann Hay Case and the Wilbur-Ellis case
is appropriate under Rule 42(a).
Accordingly, these cases will
be consolidated with the Hartmann Hay case designated as the lead
In addition, Hartmann Hay will be designated as the lead
plaintiff in accordance with the joint stipulation.
On November 21, 2016, following the filing of the
stipulation, the Court issued an order setting the schedule for
the final progression of this case.
Therefore, the Court will
not readdress the proposed dates at this time.
Finally, the Rule
26(f) Report will be deemed amended as provided.
IT IS ORDERED:
1) The Hartmann Hay case and the Wilbur-Ellis case are
2) The Hartmann Hay case is designated as the lead case
with Hartmann Hay designated as the lead plaintiff.
3) The Rule 26(f) report is amended as provided in Case
No. 8:16CV123, Filing No. 27 at 3-4.
DATED this 11th day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?