Marquette Transportation Company Gulf-Inland LLC

Filing 87

ORDER granting 85 Motion to Consolidate Cases: Lead Case No. 2:14cv163 and Member Case No. 2:16cv41, 2:14cv163.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Jason B Libby) Parties notified.(lcayce, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JOHN BORDAS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY GULF-INLAND LLC, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

May 09, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-163

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Pending is Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Consolidate. (D.E. 85). The motion is
GRANTED for the reasons set forth below.
I.

BACKGROUND
This is a maritime limitation of liability action previously consolidated with a

maritime negligence and Jones Act action. (D.E. 18). John Bordas, a seaman allegedly
injured on a vessel has been designated as the plaintiff.

Marquette Transportation

Company Gulf-Inland, L.L.C. (“Marquette”) and the Ingram Barge Company (“Ingram”)
have been designated as the defendants. On January 12, 2016, Plaintiff sought leave to
amend his complaint to add a maritime maintenance and cure cause of action. (D.E. 69).
The motion to amend to add the maintenance and cure claim was denied. (D.E. 76). The
case is set for trial before United States District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos on July 18,
2016. (D.E. 77).

1/4

On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a separate cause of action against Marquette
wherein he brings a claim for maritime maintenance and cure. See Bordas v. Marquette
Trans. Co. Gulf-Inland L.L.C., No. 2:16-cv-41 (S.D. Tex. filed Feb. 8, 2016). Plaintiff
alleges the maintenance and cure action arises out of the same facts giving rise to the
negligence cause of action. Plaintiff seeks to consolidate the cases for purposes of
judicial economy. Defendants object to consolidation arguing the Defendants are ready
for trial, the issues are not identical, and under maritime law and procedure the
maintenance and cure claim will be decided by the Court as opposed to a jury.
Defendants also assert that Plaintiff’s injuries were pre-existing and were not disclosed to
Defendant prior to the employment decision and further that Plaintiff has reached his
maximum medical improvement (“MMI”). Defendants argue these matters will require
the presentation of evidence that is largely unnecessary in the original action.
All of the pending causes of action have been referred to the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge for case management, ruling on non-dispositive motions and
making recommendations on dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
II.

ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that if actions “involve a common

question of law or fact,” the court may “consolidate the actions” or “issue any other order
to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Consolidation does not merge
the suits into a single action or change the rights of the parties; rather, consolidation is
“intended only as a procedural device used to promote judicial efficiency and economy”

2/4

and “the actions maintain their separate identities.” See Frazier v. Garrison I.S.D., 980
F.2d 1514, 1532 (5th Cir. 1993).
The decision to consolidate actions under Rule 42(a) is “entirely within the
discretion of the district court as it seeks to promote the administration of justice.” Gentry
v. Smith, 487 F.2d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 1973); see also Luera v. M/V Alberta, 635 F.3d 181,
194 (5th Cir. 2011). Factors for the court to consider in deciding if consolidation is
appropriate include the following: “(1) whether the actions are pending before the same
court, (2) whether common parties are involved in the cases, (3) whether there are
common questions of law and/or fact, (4) whether there is risk of prejudice or confusion
if the cases are consolidated, and if so, is the risk outweighed by the risk of inconsistent
adjudications of factual and legal issues if the cases are tried separately, and (5) whether
consolidation will conserve judicial resources and reduce the time and cost of trying the
cases separately.” In re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & “ERISA” Litigation, Civ.
A. Nos. H–01–3624, H–04–0088, H–04–0087, H–03–5528, 2007 WL 446051, at *1
(S.D. Tex. Feb.7, 2007).
In the instant matter, the actions are pending before the same court. Plaintiff and
Marquette are common parties. While not identical, the cases involve common questions
of law and fact. Plaintiff alleges in both cases that his injuries occurred on June 17, 2012
in the course and scope of his employment with Marquette as a seaman on the tug M/V
ST. JOSEPH. He further alleges the occurrence in question occurred on a barge owned
by Ingram. While the legal issues may not be identical, these cases involve common
questions of fact. The Fifth Circuit has recognized that maintenance and cure actions
3/4

may be joined with Jones Act claims. See Pelotto v. L & N Towing Co., 604 F.2d 396,
400-401 (5th Cir. 1979). Further, there is little risk of prejudice or confusion if the cases
are consolidated. Finally, consolidation will conserve judicial resources and reduce the
time and cost of trying the cases separately. When considering and denying Plaintiff’s
previously filed motion to amend, the undersigned was of the opinion that trying the
causes of action separately was the most efficient way to proceed. The undersigned has
reconsidered this analysis.

The maintenance and cure action is now a live action

requiring the time of the Court. The posture of the parties is such that settlement is
unlikely. The discovery in both cases overlaps to a large degree and much of it has been
completed. Trying both cases separately will result in the needless presentation of the
same evidence in two trials. Therefore, the undersigned finds that the cases should be
consolidated.
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Consolidate (D.E. 85) is GRANTED.

It is ORDERED that the Clerk shall consolidate Civil Action 2:16-cv-41 with 2:14-cv163. The Clerk is ordered to administratively close Cause No. 2:16-cv-41. All future
pleadings shall be filed in the older case, Cause No. 2:14-cv-163.
An amended scheduling order will be entered by separate order.
ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2016.
___________________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge
4/4