Sahoo et al v. Hayner et al

Filing 13

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Consolidate Cases. These actions shall proceed under the caption at case number 5:16-CV-153-BO. No further filling should be made in 5:18-CV-95-BO. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 4/18/2018. (Stouch, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

RACHEL SAHOO and GOURAB SAHOO,
Plaintiffs,
~

JAMIE GLEATON and KITTY HART,
Defendants.

RACHEL SAHOO and GOURAB SAHOO,
Plaintiffs,

v.
RICHARD HAYNER, SWEETLY SANDERS,
And UNKNOWN JOHN DOE SUPERVISORS
AND POLICYMAKERS 1-10,
Defendants.

)
)
)

)

No. 5:16-CV-153-BO

)
)
)

)
)
)

)

No. 5:18-CV-95-BO

)
)
)
)
)

These causes are before the Court on plaintiffs' motion to consolidate and motion to
amend complaint. The motions are ripe for ruling. For the reasons given below, plaintiffs'
motions are granted.
Plaintiffs' underlying lawsuit alleges civil rights violations stemming from their
temporary loss of custody of their children. They filed their second amended complaint on April
23, 2017. A hearing was held before the undersigned on November 30, 2017. This Court
determined that as defendants had relied on matters outside of the pleadings, defendants motions
were converted to motions for summary judgment, and the motions to dismiss were denied

without prejudice so that discovery could begin. Plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit against
another set of related defendants on March 9, 2018.
Plaintiffs have now moved to amend their second amended complaint and to consolidate
the two lawsuits. The motions have the same underlying purpose, as plaintiffs' intention in ·
amending the complaint is to add the parties named in the second lawsuit.
Motions to amend should be denied "only when the amendment would be prejudicial to
the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment
would be futile." Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir. 1999). There is no
evidence of such circumstances here. Actions pending before a court may be consolidated when
the actions involve common questions oflaw or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Both cases arise out
of the same set of allegations.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, plaintiffs' motion to amend [DE 71] is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs' motions to consolidate [DE 73; DE 7] are GRANTED. These actions shall proceed
under the caption at case number 5:16-CV-153-BO. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter this order
in each of the now-consolidated actions and to administratively close the file of case number
5:18-CV-95-BO. No further filling should be made in 5:18-CV-95-BO.

SO ORDERED, this

jL day of April, 2018.