Neblett v. Clairmont Paciello & Co., P.C. et al

Filing 36

ORDER (MEMORANDUM filed previously as separate docket entry): The Motion to Dismiss filed by Dft Clairmont Paciello & Co., P.C. 16 is DENIED AS MOOT; the Motion to Dismiss filed by Dft Clairmont Paciello & Co., P.C. 25 is DENIED; the Motion to Dismiss filed by dfts Thompson Coburn LLP and Michael de Leon Hawthorne 24 is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to consolidate these matters to Docket No. 4:15-cv-01622, and close Docket Nos. 4:15-cv-01731 and 4:15-cv-01826. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 6/8/16. (km)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN P. NEBLETT, as Chapter 7
Trustee of VALLEY FORGE
COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLAIRMONT PACIELLO & CO.,
P.C., MOUNTJOY CHILTON
MEDLEY LLP, MICHAEL DE
LEON HAWTHORNE and
THOMPSON COBURN LLP,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Nos. 4:15-cv-01622
4:15-cv-01731
4:15-cv-01826
(Judge Brann)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of June, 2016, in accordance with the
accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Clairmont Paciello
& Co., P.C., on September 29, 2015 and docketed as ECF No.
16 in 4:15-cv-01622 is DENIED AS MOOT in light of the
Amended Complaint filed October 20, 2015.

-1-

2.

The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Clairmont Paciello
& Co., P.C., on November 9, 2015 and docketed as ECF No. 25
in 4:15-cv-01622 is DENIED.

3.

The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Mountjoy Chilton
Medley LLP on October 2, 2015 and docketed as ECF No. 13 in
4:15-cv-01731 is DENIED.

4.

The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Thompson Coburn
LLP and Michael de Leon Hawthorne on November 9, 2015
and docketed as ECF No. 10 in 4:15-cv-01826; ECF No. 22 in
4:15-cv-01731; and ECF No. 24 in 4:15-cv-1622 is DENIED.

5.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 and to facilitate
the administration of justice by promoting judicial economy
and expedition of the litigation, the above-captioned actions
are consolidated for all further purposes, the Court having
found that they “involve a common question of law or fact.”1

1

See Ellerman Lines, Ltd. v. Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc., 339 F.2d 673, 675 (3d
Cir. 1964) (“Rule 42(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, confers upon a
district court broad power, whether at the request of a party or upon its own
initiative, to consolidate causes for trial as may facilitate the administration of

-2-

6.

The Clerk of Court is directed to consolidate these matters to
Docket No. 4:15-cv-01622. The Clerk shall then close Docket
Nos. 4:15-cv-01731 and 4:15-cv-01826.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

justice.”). Close v. Calmar S. S. Corp., 44 F.R.D. 398, 410 (E.D. Pa. 1968), aff’d
sub nom. Blake v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 417 F.2d 264 (3d Cir. 1969) (“In dealing
with consolidation, pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules, this Court may
make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid
unnecessary costs or delay.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Turner v.
Transportacion Maritima Mexicana S. A., 44 F.R.D. 412, 415 (E.D. Pa. 1968)
(“The power of this Court to order a consolidation pursuant to Rule 42 of the
Federal Rules is purely discretionary. The power is generally exercised when
it is clear that consolidation will serve policies such as judicial economy and
expedition of litigation.”) (internal citation omitted). Smithkline Beecham
Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., No. 00-CV-1393, 2001 WL 1249694, at *5 (E.D.
Pa. Sept. 26, 2001) (“Consolidation may by ordered on the motion of a party
or sua sponte and in spite of the parties’ opposition.”).

-3-