Brautigam v. Rubin et al

Filing 8

OPINION: Plaintiffs' motions are granted. The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to close case number 11 Civ. 2822 and consolidate these cases under the docket for case number 11 Civ. 2693. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 12/15/2011) (ft)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------x
:
MICHAEL G. BRAUTIGAM,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
– against –
:
:
ROBERT E. RUBIN, et al.
:
:
Defendants,
:
:
and
:
:
CITIGROUP, INC.
:
:
:
Nominal Defendant.
:
---------------------------------------------x
:
WILLIAM FITZPATRICK,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
– against –
:
:
ROBERT E. RUBIN, et al.
:
:
Defendants,
:
:
and
:
:
CITIGROUP, INC.
:
:
:
Nominal Defendant.
:
---------------------------------------------x

11 Civ. 2693 (TPG)
OPINION

11 Civ. 2822 (TPG)
OPINION

The plaintiffs in these two related actions seek the consolidation of
the two cases and the appointment of lead counsel. Defendants do not

oppose consolidation of the two actions and take no position with respect
to the plaintiffs’ request for appointment of counsel.
The motions are granted.
DISCUSSION
Consolidation
Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
court has discretion to consolidate cases for pre-trial purposes. See
Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284-85 (2d Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 498 U.S. 920 (1990). “In the exercise of discretion, courts have
taken the view that considerations of judicial economy favor
consolidation.” Id. at 1285; see also Consorti v. Armstrong World Indus.,
Inc., 72 F.3d 1003, 1006 (2d Cir. 1995).
The defendants do not object to consolidation in this case and it
would be economical to have these cases, which include substantially
similar allegations, consolidated into one action.
All future filings in these cases are to be filed in the docket for case
number 11 Civ. 2693.
Appointment of Counsel
An order consolidating cases for pre-trial purposes may also set a
leadership structure for the consolidated proceedings. See MacAlister v.
Guterma, 263 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1958). Appointment of lead counsel
serves to prevent “overlapping duplication in motion practices and pre-

-2-

trial procedures occasioned by competing counsel representing dilrent
plaintiffs in separate stockholder derivative actions.» Id.
Here, the plaintiffs in these two actions have both requested Ithat
three different law firms, Emerson Poynter LLP, Branstetter, Stranfh &
Jennings, PLLC, and Whatley, Drake & Kallas, LLC, serve as Co-Lc;ad
!

Counsel for these actions upon consolidation. Defendants take nOI

I

position with respect to plaintiffs' request.

The court appoints these three firms as Co-Lead Counsel in these
i

actions. If the appointment of multiple firms as Co-Lead Counsel later
proves inefficient, the court may revisit this determination as
appropriate.
CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs' motions are granted. The clerk of court is hereby

i

directed to close case number 11 Civ. 2822 and consolidate these ~ases
I

under the docket for case number 11 Civ. 2693.
Dated: New York, New York
December 15, 2011

I

~f~

I
.

... ,; =

USOCSDNY
DQCUtv1ENT

Thomas P. Griesa
U.S. District Judge

ELECTR:):-';l C..\, I ,tV mED

~?:FIl1.G:

'7. II <) L11

_.t~

-3 ­

.