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.)

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