Parrott v. Chickillo et al

Filing 10

ORDER in case 3:14-cv-00015-FDW-DCK; granting (9) Motion to Consolidate Cases for Discovery and Trial. All further pleadings to be electronically filed to: 3:14cv15 only. Member Case: 3:14cv70 to be administratively closed in case 3:14-cv-00070-RJC-DSC. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 4/2/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(jde)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:14-CV-00015-FDW-DSC
MARK RAY MARTIN PARROTT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEVEN CHICKILLO, and,
NETWORKS, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Steven Chickillo and NETworks,
LLC (“Defendants”) Motion to Consolidate NETworks, LLC and Steven Chickillo v. Mark Ray
Martin Parrott, Case No. 3:14-cv-00070-RJC-DSC, with this case. Case No. 3:14-cv-00070RJC-DSC, Doc. No. 9.
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/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, the Court considers several factors
including: (1) the risk of prejudice and confusion, (2) the burden on the parties and witnesses,
and (3) the economy of judicial resources. See Arnold v. Eastern Airlines, 681 F.2d 186, 193
(4th Cir. 1982).
These cases concern the same parties, and the claims asserted in Defendants’ Complaint
in NETworks, LLC v. Parrott, are identical to the counterclaims asserted by Defendants in this

case. Compare NETworks, LLC v. Parrott, Case No. 3:14-cv-00070-RJC-DSC, Doc. No. 1, with
Mark Ray Martin Parrott v. Steven Chickillo and NETworks, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00015FDW-DSC, Doc. No. 1.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of civil

Procedure and in light of the facts noted above, this Court finds that these two cases should be
consolidated.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate, NETworks,
LLC v. Parrott, Case No. 3:14-cv-00070-RJC-DSC, Doc. No. 9, is GRANTED, and this Court
shall accept re-assignment of Case No. 3:14-cv-00070.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: April 2, 2014