Synovus Bank v. Karp et al

Filing 20

ORDER Consolidating Cases for Discovery. All further pleadings to be docketed to: 1:10cv172. Member Case: 1:10cv201; 1:10cv202; 1:10cv215; 1:10cv217; 1:10cv218; 1:10cv220; 1:10cv221; 1:10cv231 to be administratively closed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 12/10/10. (siw)

-

D

L

SH

y

n

o

v

u

sB

a

n

kv

.K

a

r

pe

t aD

lo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:10cv172 [consolidating 1:10cv172, 1:10cv201, 1:10cv202, 1:10cv215, 1:10cv217, 1:10cv218, 1:10cv220, 1:10cv 221, 1:10cv231] SYNOVUS BANK, Plaintiff, Vs. JAMES G. KARP; G. DANIEL SIEGEL; and THE KARP FAMILY FOUNDATION, Defendants. _______________________________ SYNOVUS BANK , Plaintiff, Vs. BARRON S. WALL, Defendant. ______________________________ NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, Vs. KEVIN J. TRACY, Defendant. _______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:10cv172

1:10cv201

1:10cv202

-1-

D

o

c

k

NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, Vs. ANTHONY J. BARBIERI, Defendant. _______________________________ NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, Vs. 3GMA REALTY, LLC; and GERALD M. ABATEMARCO, Defendants. ______________________________ SYNOVUS BANK, Plaintiff, Vs. GREGORY S. KEARY, Defendant. ______________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:10cv215

1:10cv217

1:10cv218

-2-

NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, Vs. BENJAMIN W. ATKINSON; and DANIEL S. HINKSON, Defendant. _______________________________ NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, Vs. KATHERINE H. WILLIAMS, Defendant. _______________________________ SYNOVUS BANK, Plaintiff, Vs. PATRICIA M. TRACY, Defendant. _______________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:10cv220

1:10cv221

1:10cv231

O R D E R CONSOLIDATING CASES T H IS MATTER is before the court on the court's own Motion for C o n so lid atio n based on the suggestion of defendants. A hearing was calendared for D ecem b er 10, 2010, at which all counsel of record appeared. After considering the
-3-

w ell-reaso n ed arguments of all counsel, the court concluded that consolidation of the ab o v e captioned actions for purposes of discovery, all pretrial proceedings, and d is p o s itiv e motions was appropriate, but that determination of whether the matters sh o u ld be consolidated for trial was more appropriately left to the sound discretion of th e district court. In conjunction with such consolidation, the court developed, with th e assistance of counsel, a schedule for final amendments to counterclaims, the filing o f a consolidated motion to dismiss, and briefing of such motions. C o u n s e l for defendants also forecast that another 10 cases would likely be filed b y other lot owners against the plaintiffs herein. Based on such representation, the c o u r t advised out-of-state counsel that the court had serious concerns with serial ad m issio n pro hac vice. After the hearing, the court gave additional thought to the d ile m m a , and would suggest that counsel carefully consider joinder of additional p a r tie s under Rule 19(a)(1)(B) for the following reasons: (1)while the district court w ill determine whether any of these matters should be tried together, trial of e ss en tia lly identical issues to different juries could lead to inconsistent results, which c o u ld undermine public confidence in the judicial system; (2) under Rule 19(a)(1)(B), n o n - jo in d e r could result in inconsistent obligations for the banks; and (3) joinder r ath e r than filing 10 additional cases may resolve the court's concern with serial a d m is sio n , as well as result in substantial savings in filing and admission fees for such

-4-

ad d itio n al parties. F in a lly, the court will encourage the parties to explore amicable resolution of th e s e matters through employing a highly qualified mediator. In a number of other c as es (that are strikingly similar to these cases) the parties were able to resolve similar d isp u tes amicably. ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that (1) th e above captioned cases are CONSOLIDATED for purposes of reso lv in g dispositive motions, discovery, and all pretrial proceedings, in clu d in g Rule 56 motions. The issue of consolidation for purposes of trial is DEFERRED for disposition by the district court in its sound d is c r e tio n ; (2 ) th e following schedule for amendment, the filing of a motion to dismiss co u n terclaim s, and briefing is implemented: (a) f in al amendments to counterclaims (as specifically limited in co u rt) shall be filed by January 1, 2011; (b) a ll motions to dismiss counterclaims now pending are

ad m in istrativ ely DENIED without prejudice and deadlines for r es p o n d in g to any such motions are WITHDRAWN;

-5-

(c)

a consolidated Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims shall be filed by p lain tiffs not later than January 31, 2011,supported by a brief not to exceed 50 pages in length;

(d )

d efen d an ts shall file a consolidated Response within 30 days of p la in tif fs filing their consolidated Motion to Dismiss, supported b y a brief not to exceed 50 pages in length; and

( e)

p la in tif fs shall file their consolidated Reply, supported by a brief n o t to exceed 20 pages in length; and

(3 )

W ith in 14 days after final disposition of the Motion to Dismiss by the d istrict court, the parties shall file a new CIAC and a Pretrial Order shall th e r ein a f te r issue.

T h e court notes and appreciates the manner in which all counsel handled oral a rg u m en ts and commends them for their professionalism and collegiality.

Signed: December 10, 2010

-6-