Numa v. IC System, Inc.
ORDER re [25, 26, 31, 32] : Defendant's application to consolidate this action with six other cases pending in this District or, in the alternative, to have the referenced cases treat as related is denied. See attached. Ordered by Judge Denis R. Hurley on 12/21/2016. (Gapinski, Michele)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-againstIC SYSTEM, INC.
Presently before the Court is defendant’s application to consolidate this action with six
other cases pending in this District or, in the alternative, to have the referenced cases treat as
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that “[i]f actions before the court involve
common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the action.” Whether to grant
consolidation lies within the broad discretion of the Court. See Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899
F.2d 1281, 1284-85 (2d Cir. 1990). In exercising its discretion, “a district court should consider
both equity and judicial economy.” Devlin v. Transp. Commc'n Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130
(2d Cir. 1999). Consolidation is warranted where it promotes judicial economy and serves to
eliminate waste associated with duplicative discovery and multiple trials. See id.; KamdenOuaffo v. Pepsico, Inc., 314 F.R.D. 130, 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). The burden is on the moving party
to demonstrate that consolidation is appropriate. Id. at 136-37.
This action and each of the six actions sought to be consolidated are at various stages of
litigation. Indeed, as defendant concedes, some the actions are in the midst of discovery, other
are in the process of briefing motions and other have pending motions. (DE 31 at 1-2.) Given
these varying stages, consolidation is not appropriate. See, e.g., Kamden-Ouaffo, 314 F.R.D. at
137 (denying consolidation where one case was in discovery and the other had a fully briefed
dispositive motion); Ruane v. County of Suffolk, 923 F. Supp.2d 454 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (holding
judicial economy would not be served by consolidation where the actions were at different stages
of the litigation).
The same consideration supports denial of the request to have the referenced cases treated
as related. In addition, such a request is untimely. Local Rule 50.3.1 requires that an application
to have cases related be made within thirty (30) of service of the complaint unless “good cause”
is shown to permit a later filing. No good cause has been shown here.
The application is denied.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
December 21, 2016
/s Denis R. Hurley
Denis R. Hurley
United States District Judge
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?