Seabrooks v. Evans Delivery Company Inc. et al
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 10 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 10/16/20. (kld)
Thx IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Harrisonburg Division
MILLER SEABROOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
EVANS DELIVERY CO. and
RONALD LEE BROWN, JR.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00039
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
By:
Joel C. Hoppe
United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff
Cases. ECF No. 10. Seabrooks seeks to consolidate two cases currently pending in this district:
Seabrooks v. Evans, No. 5:20cv39 (W.D. Va. June 29, 2020)
Seabrooks, No. 5:20cv10 (W.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2020)
Seabrooks
and Brown v.
Brown . For the reasons stated below, the
Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Consolidate and consolidates these two cases for all
further proceedings, including trial.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On July 26, 2018, Miller Seabrooks and Ronald Lee Brown, Jr. were involved in a
motor vehicle accident in Rockingham County, Virginia. Compl. 2, Seabrooks, ECF No. 1. The
parties filed separate civil actions, both stemming from the accident, against each other in federal
court. A brief procedural history is instructive.
In November 2018, Seabrooks filed a complaint against Brown and other defendants in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. See Compl., Seabrooks v.
Brown, Jr. et al., No. 1:18cv10155 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2018), ECF No. 2. That action was later
dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. Op. & Order, Seabrooks v. Brown,
Jr. et al., No. 1:18cv10155 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2019), ECF No. 53.
1
On February 13, 2020, Brown filed his own complaint against Seabrooks in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. See Compl., Brown, ECF No. 1. He
s negligence caused
njuries. Id.
Seabrooks filed an
Answer, Brown, ECF No.
8. Seabrooks did not plead a counterclaim against Brown. Id. Brown filed an Amended
Complaint on July 24, 2020. Am. Compl., Brown, ECF No. 19. Seabrooks filed an Answer to
. Answer to Am. Compl., Brown, ECF No. 22.
He still did not plead a counterclaim. Id.
Meanwhile, Seabrooks filed a civil action against Brown and his alleged employer,
Evans Delivery Company
, in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Virginia. See Compl., Seabrooks, ECF No. 1. He
the
. Id. Seabrooks also alleged that Brown was acting as
Id. On August 18, 2020, Brown filed a motion to
d
. Mot. to Dismiss, Seabrooks, ECF No. 7. Brown argued that
s claims against him were compulsory counterclaims under Rule 13(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore should have been raised in
to
-filed suit. Id.
Seabrooks
in
. Am. Answer, Brown, ECF No. 25. On this occasion, Seabrooks pleaded a
counterclaim against Brown. Id. at 3 5. On the same day, in his own action, Seabrooks filed the
Motion to Consolidate that is the subject of this Order. Mot. to Consolidate Cases, Seabrooks,
ECF No. 10.
Cases, Seabrooks, ECF No. 16.
2
II. Legal Framework
Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits consolidation of actions before
Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1129 (2018); see also A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v.
Tidewater Constr. Corp.
discretion under [Rule 42(a)
Courts
de
on the parties, witnesses, and judicial resources, the length of time required to independently
resolve multiple related actions, and the relative expense of the same. Campbell v. Bos. Sci.
Corp., 882 F.3d 70, 74 (4th Cir. 2018).
when the balance
of these factors supports it. In re Orbital Sci. Corp. Secs. Litig., 188 F.R.D. 237, 238 (E.D. Va.
1999) (citing Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284 85 (2d Cir. 1990)).
III. Analysis
These two actions pose substantially similar issues of law and fact. Consolidation is thus
appropriate under Rule 42(a). Both actions arise out of the same facts: a July 26, 2018 motor
vehicle accident on Interstate 81 in Rockingham County, Virginia. See Compl., Brown, ECF No.
1; Compl., Seabrooks, ECF No. 1. Seabrooks and Brown were driving separate vehicles that
collided, and each now alleges
injuries. Compl., Brown, ECF No. 1; Compl., Seabrooks, ECF No. 1. Because these actions both
arise out of the same incident, have common parties, and allege the same conduct against one
another, consolidation is warranted. Vortekx, Inc. v. IAS Comm
3
, Inc., 72 F. Supp. 2d 638, 640
(N.D. W.Va. 1999) (consolidating cases where, otherwise, the same parties and interests would
U.S. ex rel. Sprinkle Masonry, Inc. v. THR Enters., Inc., No. 2:14cv251, 2014 WL 4748527, at
*1, *3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, 2014) (finding consolidation appropriate where plaintiff filed two
lawsuits against defendant where the facts and parties common to both actions were substantially
similar).
One difference between these two actions is that each names a defendant who is not
party to the other action. See Am. Compl., Brown, ECF No. 19 (naming S&M Moving and
Storage as a defendant); Compl., Seabrooks, ECF No. 1 (naming Evans as a defendant). These
parties, however, have been named as defendants solely on a theory of respondeat superior.
Brown alleges that Seabrooks was acting as an agent of S&M Moving and Storage
at
the time of the accident, Am. Compl., Brown, ECF No. 19, while Seabrooks alleges that Brown
was acting
No. 1.
at the time of the accident, Compl., Seabrooks, ECF
therefore intricately intertwined with the dispute between
Brown and Seabrooks. This difference between the two cases does not predominate over the
substantial similarities between them in all other respects. See Loudermilk v. Autozoners, LLC,
No. 5:15cv16131, 2016 WL 6824396, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 17, 2016) (finding consolidation
issues specific to each plaintiff were unlikely to predominate over common issues); Vortekx, 72
F. Supp. 2d at 639 (although different parties were named in both cases, consolidation was
te in the case).
This Court has considered all relevant factors and concludes that each factor favors
consolidation. First, without consolidation, there is a risk of inconsistent adjudications. Should
4
these cases proceed separately, one would reach a judgment before the other. Such a judgment
could preclude further proceedings in the still-pending action and could thereby significantly
impair the rights of the parties. See Bennett v. Garner
Stated
simply, res
The burdens on the parties, witnesses, and judicial resources; the length of time required
to independently resolve both related actions; the relative expense of two actions; and the
possibility of confusion also favor consolidation. Both cases revolve around whether either party
negligently caused a motor vehicle accident in which both individual plaintiffs were injured.
Discovery as to liability in both actions will likely, therefore, focus heavily on that issue. Any
documents produced in one action would almost certainly be relevant to the issues in the other
action. Likewise, any witnesses would also be common to both cases and would provide similar
testimony in each case. Should these cases proceed separately, then, discovery would be almost
entirely duplicative. Consolidation will prevent that. Fed. Ins. Co. v. PACCAR, Inc., No.
2:15cv13508, 2016 WL 1261148, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 30, 2018) (finding consolidated
Joint discovery will
reduce the cost to the parties, will limit the time spent on discovery, and will be more convenient
for witnesses. At the trial stage, consolidation will obviate the need for two separate trials
between the same parties concerning the same events. Throughout this litigation, consolidation
will also conserve judicial resources by preventing this Court from having to separately
administer these two suits. Allowing two nearly identical actions to proceed separately would
only lead to unnecessary confusion and duplicative efforts by all involved.
5
The procedural posture of both cases also favors consolidation. In Seabrooks, discovery
has not yet begun. See Sched. Letter, Seabrooks, ECF No. 13. And though written discovery has
begun in Brown
, the parties are not so far into the
process that consolidation will be prejudicial. See Sched. Order, Brown, ECF No. 13; Order on
Rule 26(f) Report, Brown, ECF No. 15. Accordingly, consolidation at this stage is unlikely to
cause prejudice or delay.
Finally, there is little risk of prejudice to any party. Brown and Evans disagree,
contending that consolidation will be prejudicial.
Cases 6 7, Seabrooks, ECF No. 16. They
compulsory counterclaims that should have been, but were not,
Id. at 6. They further contend that Seabrooks should not be permitted to
circumvent the dictates of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding waiver of compulsory
action. Id. at 5. The Court concludes, however, that Brown and Evans will not be prejudiced by
consolidation because consolidation of these two cases will not merge them into a single civil
,
action.
but does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those
who are parties in one suit parties in another. Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co. & Boehm v. Same,
289 U.S. 479, 496 97 (1933).
Hall
[courts have] understood consolidation not as
completely merging the constituent cases into one, but instead as enabling more efficient case
management while preserving the distinct identities of the cases and the rights of the separate
Id.
6
meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)). Thus, despite consolidation, these two civil actions will
Id. Relatedly, Brown has filed separate motions to dismiss
in each of the two actions. See Mot. to Dismiss, Seabrooks, ECF
No. 7; Mot. to Dismiss and Mot. to Strike, Brown, ECF No. 27. After consolidation, Brown will
remain free to continue to litigate these motions to dismiss. He will therefore suffer no prejudice
from consolidation of the two actions.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, consolidation of these two cases is warranted. Accordingly,
Cases, Seabrooks, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED. The cases
will be consolidated for all future proceedings, including trial.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the parties.
ENTER: October 16, 2020
Joel C. Hoppe
U.S. Magistrate Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?