McCrory et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 36

ORDER allowing Phil Berger's and Tim Moore's 11 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 6/13/2016. (Romine, L.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:16-CV-238-BO PATRICK L. MCCRORY, in his official capacity as Governor ofthe State ofNorth Carolina, and FRANK PERRY, in his official capacity as Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, eta/., Defendants. ORDER ) ) ) ) This cause comes before the Court on a motion to consolidate pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed in this matter by the plaintiffs in Berger v. United States Dept. ofJustice, No. 5:16-CV-240-FL. Plaintiffs in this action have responded indicating that they do not oppose consolidation to the extent that it does not impede or interfere with transfer of this action to the Middle District. 1 [DE 31 ]. The motion to consolidate represents that the federal defendants, who have not yet appeared in this action, oppose consolidation. Rule 42 provides for the consolidation of actions pending before a court if the actions involve common questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The Court has broad discretion to consolidate cases pending in this district, AIS J Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Canst. Co., 559 F.2d 928,933 (4th Cir. 1977), and it does not require consent ofthe parties to do so. See, e.g., Arnoldv. E. Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 191 (4th Cir. 1982) (discussing sua sponte consolidation); see also Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. ofCan., 210 F.3d 1 The Court has denied plaintiffs' motion to transfer. [DE 34]. 771,774 (7th Cir. 2000) (consent of parties not required for consolidation). In determining whether to consolidate cases, a court considers the risks of prejudice and possible confusion against the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, as well as the burden on the parties and judicial resources including the length of time required to conclude multiple suits and the relative expense to all concerned. Arnold, 681 F.2d at 193. These cases include common factual and legal issues and the risk of inconsistent judgment outweighs any potential prejudice to the parties. The Court further finds that consolidation would not impose any undue burden on the parties or witnesses in these matters. As sufficient time has passed to consider any reason to deny consolidation and no good reason exists, and in furtherance of the efficient and timely administration of justice, the Court in its discretion ALLOWS the motion to consolidate. [DE 11]. SO ORDERED, this jJ_ day of June, 2016 . .T.~~ w./J...._h'" w. ~T -' RRENCE BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?