Crocker v. Bushyhead et al

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary Granting Motion to Consolidate Case Nos. 15-CV-89-JED-PJC and 15-CV-90-JED-FHM for all purposes. Case No. 15-CV-89-JED-PJC is designated the Base File ; consolidating cases (trial); granting 7 Motion to Consolidate Cases (kjp, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SAMUEL K. CROCKER, United States
Trustee for Region 20,
Appellant,

vs.

BOW H. BUSHYHEAD and
D’LYNN BUSHYHEAD,
Appellees.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

BASE FILE
Case No. 15-CV-89-JED-PJC
Consolidated with
Case No. 15-CV-90-JED-FHM

OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court is Appellant, Samuel K. Crocker, U.S. Trustee’s Motion to
Consolidate Appeals (Dkt. No. 7). Appellant asks the court to consolidate this case, Crocker v.
Bushyhead, 15-CV-89-JED-PJC (Crocker I), with another pending case recently appealed to this
Court from the Bankruptcy Court, Crocker v. Bushyhead, 15-CV-90-JED-FHM (Crocker II).
Appellees, Bow H. Bushyhead and D’Lynn Bushyhead, do not oppose consolidation of the
cases. Dkt. No. 7.
A district court has the discretion to consolidate separate actions for trial if the cases
involve a common issue of law or fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a); American Emp. Ins. Co. v. King
Resources Co., 545 F.2d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir.1976); Skirvin v. Mesta, 141 F.2d 668, 672 (10th
Cir.1944). The objective of Rule 42(a) is “to give the court broad discretion to decide how cases
on its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched with expedition
and economy while providing justice to the parties.” Breaux v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.,
220 F.R .D. 366, 367 (D.Colo.2004). Courts generally consider “the saving of time and effort
that consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense” caused by
consolidation. C.T. v. Liberal School Dist., 562 F.Supp.2d 1324, 1346 (D.Kan.2008).

Consolidation of cases under Rule 42 does not strip any case of its independent character, and
each case retains its separate identity. Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 496–97
(1933); Patton v. Aerojet Ordnance Co., 765 F.2d 604, 606 (6th Cir.1985).
Both of these appeals arise from separate orders issued in the same underlying
bankruptcy case. The appeals involve the same parties and involve common issues of law and
fact and Appellees do not oppose Appellant’s Motion. The Court finds that judicial economy is
best served by consolidation of the cases at issue. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
Appellant’s Motion to Consolidate Appeals (Dkt. No. 7) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1. Case Nos. 15-CV-89-JED-PJC and 15-CV-90-JED-FHM are consolidated in their
entirety.
2. Case No. 15-CV-89-JED-PJC is designated as the Base File.
3. All further pleadings, motions and other documents shall bear only the title and
designation of Case No. 15-CV-89-JED-PJC with the words “Base File” written
below the case number, and all pleadings shall be filed in the Base File only.
4. This Opinion and Order shall be filed in both Case Nos. 15-CV-89-JED-PJC and
15-CV-90-JED-FHM.
DATED this 25th day of March, 2015.