Synovus Bank v. Coleman

Filing 57

ORDER denying 51 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 01/23/2012. (thh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:11cv66
SYNOVUS BANK,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK COLEMAN,
Defendant.
___________________________________ )

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Joint Motion to Consolidate [# 51]. The
parties move to consolidate twelve separate cases for pre-trial purposes and
discovery. Each of these cases was brought by Synovus Bank to recover unpaid
money due to Plaintiff under a promissory note executed by the Defendants and
secured by a deed of trust on real property. Defendants then filed counterclaims
and third-party claims asserting numerous claims against Plaintiff and a number of
Third-Party Defendants. The Court DENIES the motion [# 51].
I.

Analysis

Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that where multiple
actions are before the Court that involve common questions of law or fact, the
Court may consolidate the actions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). In considering whether

1

consolidation is appropriate, the Court should weigh the risk of prejudice and
possible confusion from consolidating the cases with “the risk of inconsistent
adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses
and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the length of time
required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense
to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives.” Arnold v. Eastern
Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 1982); see also In re Cree, Inc., 219
F.R.D. 369, 371 (M.D.N.C. 2003). Ultimately, however, the decision whether to
consolidate an action is within the broad discretion of the district court. A/S J.
Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Constr. Corp., 559 F.2d 928, 933 (4th
Cir. 1977).
Upon a review of the parties’ motion, the record in the various cases the
parties seek to consolidate, and the various factors set forth in Arnold the Court
finds that consolidation is not warranted. Although there are some common
questions of law and fact as to the counterclaims and third party claims brought by
the Defendants in these cases, the Plaintiff’s claims against the individual
Defendants are all separate and distinct. Moreover, resolution of the motions to
dismiss the counterclaims and third party claims will partially depend on the
specific factual allegations made by each Defendant. Consolidation would hinder

2

the Court’s ability to ensure that only those claims that are properly pled go
forward. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion to Consolidate [# 51]. After
this Court or the District Court has ruled on the motions to dismiss, the parties may
renew their request to consolidate this case for purposes of discovery. In making
such a motion, however, the parties should include a proposed consolidated
discovery plan for the Court to consider.
II.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the Motion to Consolidate [# 51].

Signed: January 23, 2012

3