Funderburk et al v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

Filing 30

ORDER granting (20) Motion to Consolidate Cases for in case 3:15-cv-04660-JMC; granting (17) Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 3:15-cv-04926-JMC; granting (8) Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 3:16-cv-01142-JMC Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 6/9/2016.Associated Cases: 3:15-cv-04660-JMC, 3:15-cv-04926-JMC, 3:16-cv-01142-JMC(asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Sharon Funderburk and
Thomas Funderburk,

)
Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-04660-JMC
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
ORDER
v.
)
)
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________
)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Lucas J. Snyder and Lesley M. Snyder,

)
Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-04926-JMC
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
ORDER
v.
)
)
SCE&G and the County of Lexington, SC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________
)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Ann Dennis,
Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and
CSX Transportation, Inc.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-01142-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court pursuant to Defendant South Carolina Electric & Gas

Company’s (“SCE&G”) Motion to Consolidate Solely for Purposes of Discovery and Pretrial
Motions requesting consolidation of all cases “before this Court against SCE&G with respect to
the 1,000 year probability rainstorm event that occurred in October 2015 (the ‘Flood Cases’).”
Funderburk v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04660-JMC, ECF No. 20 at 1 (D.S.C. May 19, 2016);
Snyder v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04926-JMC, ECF No. 17 at 1 (D.S.C. May 19, 2016);
Dennis v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:16-cv-01142-JMC, ECF No. 8 at 1 (D.S.C. May 19, 2016). In its
Motion, SCE&G asserts that the Flood Cases1 should be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 42 for purposes of “conducting discovery and filing and presenting argument
on pre-trial motions” because (1) the cases involve common questions of law and fact and (2)
consolidation “will reduce costs, enhance efficiency, lower the burden of litigation, and further
administrative convenience for the Court, the witnesses, and the parties, and will do so without
1

The 26 Flood Cases are identified as follows:

Sharon Funderburk and Thomas Funderburk v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04660-JMC; John P.
Cantwell v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04694-JMC; Robert Sherr and Kristi Sherr v. SCE&G,
C/A No. 3:15-cv-04695-JMC; Harry Crosby v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-4877-JMC; Leonard
Anderson and Karen Anderson v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04887-JMC; Carol Bausinger and
Scott Bausinger v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04888-JMC; Christina Boris and Glenn Boris v.
SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04889-JMC; Adair Long, Tony Long, and Marion Christopher Long
v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04890-JMC; Will Markham v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04891JMC; Richard Miranda and Dorothy Miranda v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04892-JMC; Calvin
Nesbit and Jane Nesbit v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15- cv-04893-JMC; Harry A. Plexico, Jr. and
Margaret S. Plexico v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04894-JMC; Jim Reilly and Rachael Reilly v.
SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04895-JMC; John E. Retz v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04923-JMC;
Carlo J. Siegfried v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04896-JMC; Faron Warwick and Dana Warwick
v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04897-JMC; Jeanne West v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04898JMC; Chris Williams and Catherine Williams v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04899-JMC; Warren
Boyeson and Christine M. Boyeson v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04920-JMC; Karl Hagenmeyer
and Willette Hagenmeyer v. SCE&G, C/A No. No. 3:15-cv-04922-JMC; Jesse L. Soles v.
SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04924-JMC; Lucas J. Snyder and Lesley M. Snyder v. SCE&G and
County of Lexington, SC, C/A 3:15-cv-04926-JMC; Richard Green v. SCE&G and CSX
Transportation, Inc., C/A No. 3:16-cv-01143-JMC; Ann Dennis v. SCE&G and CSX
Transportation, Inc., C/A No. 3:16-cv-01142-JMC; Anthony Melton v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:16cv-01144-JMC; and Demario Benjamin and Kerochedia Amaker v. SCE&G and CSX
Transportation, Inc., C/A No. 3:16-cv-01141-JMC.
2

prejudicing any party’s rights.” Funderburk, ECF No. 20 at 1; Snyder, ECF No. 17 at 1; Dennis,
ECF No. 8 at 1. The only opposition to SCE&G’s Motion to Consolidate is presented by CSX
Transportation, Inc., SCE&G’s co-Defendant in 3 of the Flood Cases.2
I. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that where actions involve a
common question of law or fact, the court may “(1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at
issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid
unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “District courts have broad discretion under
F[ed]. R. Civ. P. 42(a) to consolidate causes pending in the same district.” A/S J. Ludwig
Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Constr. Corp., 559 F.2d 928, 933 (4th Cir. 1977) (citation
omitted). “[C]onsolidation is appropriate when to do so will ‘foster clarity, efficiency and the
avoidance of confusion and prejudice.’” Workman v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., C/A Nos. 4:12cv-02567-JMC, 4:11-cv-01734-JMC, 2013 WL 2285937, at *3 (D.S.C. May 23, 2013) (citation
omitted).
In support of its Motion, SCE&G offered the following statements to demonstrate the
existence of common questions of both law and fact:

Each of the Flood Cases alleges claims arising out of SCE&G’s operation
of some of the Lake Murray spillway gates during the 1,000-year
probability rainfall event in October 2015. Because the claims and
allegations in each of the Flood Cases challenge SCE&G’s actions as part
of this “same series of events,” . . . , the Flood Cases have a common
factual basis that will involve developing through discovery the same
testimonial and documentary evidence from the same SCE&G witnesses
and sources to establish the same factual predicate: SCE&G’s operation of
the Saluda Hydro Project during the October rainfall event.
2

Demario Benjamin and Kerochedia Amaker v. SCE&G and CSX Transportation, Inc., C/A No.
3:16-cv-01141-JMC; Ann Dennis v. SCE&G and CSX Transportation, Inc., C/A No. 3:16-cv01142-JMC; Richard Green v. SCE&G and CSX Transportation, Inc., C/A No. 3:16-cv-01143JMC.
3

...
All of the 26 complaints filed in the Flood Cases allege claims against
SCE&G based on legal theories of negligence, trespass, and strict liability.
The negligence claim in each of these cases requires a determination of
federal issues “as the source for the duty of care resulting from SCE&G’s
operation and management of water levels at the Lake Murray Dam.” . . .
Therefore, the Flood Cases present a common question of federal law with
respect to the alleged source of a duty of care imposed on SCE&G.
Funderburk, ECF No. 20-1 at 4–5; Snyder, ECF No. 17-1 at 4–5; Dennis, ECF No. 8-1 at 4–5.
In opposing the Motion to Consolidate, CSX mainly argues that the Flood Cases are not
all the same because the property of Plaintiffs in its 3 Flood Cases “necessarily possess[] unique
characteristics, such as property value and pre-flood condition, as well as geographical variables
such as elevation, proximity to watercourses, and the like, which may be relevant to both liability
and damages analyses.” Dennis, ECF No. 12 at 4 (D.S.C. May 31, 2016). CSX also argues that
consolidating the 26 Flood Cases will multiply its “discovery efforts and costs . . . despite
involvement in only three pending cases.” (Id. at 2.)
After considering the parties’ respective positions, the court is persuaded that the Flood
Cases should be consolidated because they involve common questions of law and fact. In this
regard, the court is unable to conclude that prejudice will result from the consolidation.3 In the
alternative, the court finds any potential prejudice does not outweigh the benefit of judicial
economy provided by consolidation.
II.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS SCE&G’s Motion to Consolidate Solely
for Purposes of Discovery and Pretrial Motions. Funderburk v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-

3

The court considered CSX’s argument that consolidation would multiply its discovery efforts
and costs. However, the court believes that counsel for CSX can capably navigate discovery in
these consolidated cases without subjecting CSX to unnecessary litigation expense.
4

04660-JMC, ECF No. 20 (D.S.C. May 19, 2016); Snyder v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:15-cv-04926JMC, ECF No. 17 (D.S.C. May 19, 2016); Dennis v. SCE&G, C/A No. 3:16-cv-01142-JMC,
ECF No. 8 (D.S.C. May 19, 2016). The Clerk will enter a notice advising the parties how to
designate future filings in the Flood Cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
June 9, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

5