Steele et al v. Capital One Home Loans, LLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting 13 Motion to Consolidate Cases for Discovery andTrial. All further pleadings to be electronically filed to: 3:13cv704 only. Member Case: 3:14cv705 to be administratively closed. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 1/31/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(blf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:13-cv-704-RJC-DSC
CURTIS STEELE and YOLANDA
HARRINGTON,

v.
CAPITAL ONE HOME LOANS, LLC, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Capital One Home Loans, LLC
and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems’ Motion to Consolidate this case with Curtis
Steele and Yolanda Harrington v. Capital One Home Loans, LLC, et. al., Case No. 3:13-cv-705FDW-DCK. (Doc. No. 13). Plaintiffs did not respond to the motion, and it is ripe for review.
The Court here considers whether to consolidate two cases involving identical parties,
identical counsel, and identical allegations. The instant case seeks remedies at law for alleged
violation of state and federal laws related to a mortgage on Plaintiffs’ property in Charlotte,
North Carolina. In the companion suit, which contains the same allegations, Plaintiffs seek
equitable relief, including enjoining Defendants from foreclosing on the property.
Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to consolidate cases that
involve common questions of law or fact. Courts have broad discretion in determining whether
or not to consolidate a case. A/S Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Const. Co., 559 F.2d
928, 933 (4th Cir. 1977). Consolidation does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change
the rights of the parties. Intown Properties Mgmt. Inc. v, Wheaton Van Lines, 271 F.3d 164, 168
(4th Cir. 2001). In determining whether to consolidate a case, a court considers several factors

including: the risk of prejudice and confusion; the burden on parties and witnesses; and, the
judicial resources expended in multiple suits versus a single suit. Arnold v. Eastern Airlines, 681
F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 1982).
Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in light of the facts noted
above, this Court finds that the two cases should be consolidated.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate, (Doc. No.
13), is GRANTED, and this Court shall accept re-assignment of Case No. 3:13-cv-705.
Signed: 1/31/2014

2