Chafin v. Hunter et al
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that civil action nos. 2:11-cv-0032, 2:11-cv-0033 and 2:11-cv-0034 are consolidated for purposes of pretrial development and conferencing; the court reserves the question of consolidation of the cases for trial pending a discussion of that matter at the pretrial conference following discovery; the Gilco case (2:11-cv-0032) is designated as the lead action; all further filings shall be captioned and docketed in that case; the court will issue a consolidated scheduling order this same day that will set a single trial date; if it is ultimately determined that the cases should not be consolidated for trial, this court, in consultation with counsel, will select the first action for trial, which will proceed according to the trial date set in the scheduling order; the remaining two actions will then be set for trial as expeditiously as possible thereafter. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 9/2/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (mkw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
JEANANNE GILCO,
Plaintiff,
v.
Lead Action No. 2:11-0032
EDDIE HUNTER and
LOGAN COUNTY COMMISSION and
LOGAN COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT and
LOGAN COUNTY HOME CONFINEMENT DEPARTMENT and
JOHN REED and
JOHN DOES I-V,
Defendants,
REBECCA WHITT
Plaintiff,
v.
Consolidated Case No. 2:11-0033
EDDIE HUNTER and
LOGAN COUNTY COMMISSION and
LOGAN COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT and
LOGAN COUNTY HOME CONFINEMENT DEPARTMENT and
JOHN REED and
JOHN DOES I-V,
Defendants,
APRIL TOMBLIN CHAFIN,
Plaintiff
v.
EDDIE
LOGAN
LOGAN
LOGAN
Consolidated Case No. 2:11-0034
HUNTER
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
and
COMMISSION and
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT and
HOME CONFINEMENT DEPARTMENT and
JOHN REED and
JOHN DOES I-V,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On August 16, 2011, the court directed the parties in
the above civil actions to supplement their Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(f) reports with a discussion of the
desirability of coordinated treatment or consolidation of these
cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), in view
of, inter alia, the commonality of defendants and the similarity
of the factual allegations in each of the three actions.
In the “Supplemental Rule 26(f) Report[s]” filed in
each case, the parties represent as follows: “The parties
believe that these matters are appropriate for consolidation for
discovery purposes only.
The parties request that each matter
be tried separately pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b) in order to avoid prejudice and confusion.”
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides as
follows:
If actions before the court 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
(2)
(3)
consolidate the actions; or
issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost
or delay.
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 42(a).
Our court of appeals has entrusted
the district court with significant discretion respecting
questions arising under Rule 42(a), recognizing the superiority
of the trial court in determining how best to structure similar
pieces of litigation.
See A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v.
Tidewater Const. Co., 559 F.2d 928, 933 (4th Cir. 1977)
(“District courts have broad discretion under F.R.Civ.P. 42(a)
to consolidate causes pending in the same district.”).
Nevertheless, the court of appeals has also provided
guidelines for the exercise of that discretion.
See Arnold v.
Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 1982):
The critical question for the district court in the
final analysis was whether the specific risks of
prejudice and possible confusion were overborne by the
risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual
and legal issues, the burden on the parties, witnesses
and available judicial resources posed by multiple
lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude
multiple suits as against a single one, and the
relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial,
multiple-trial alternatives.
Id. at 193.
Although there are often risks of confusion and
prejudice attendant to a consolidation, the potential for
inconsistent adjudications is a substantial concern.
3
The
allegations in plaintiffs’ complaints, the claims pled, and the
damages sought are identical.
While the factual allegations in
each complaint setting forth the particular acts of misconduct
visited on each plaintiff differ, that is the only uncommon
element found within the four pleadings.
The court is unaware of any significant burden
consolidation might visit upon the parties, witnesses, or
available judicial resources.
Under the circumstances, court
resources could be impacted negatively by separate actions.
The
length of time required to resolve each of these actions
separately also militates strongly in favor of consolidation.
Based upon the foregoing, a limited consolidation is
appropriate.
See also Harris v. L & L Wings, Inc., 132 F.3d
978, 981 (4th Cir. 1997) (noting Rule 42(a) “approves
consolidation of actions that involve a ‘common question of law
or fact’” and further stating:
“These claims, brought against
the same defendant, relying on the same witnesses, alleging the
same misconduct, and answered with the same defenses, clearly
meet this standard.”).
The court, accordingly, ORDERS that the above-styled
civil actions be, and they hereby are, consolidated for purposes
of pretrial development and conferencing.
4
The court reserves
the question of consolidation of the cases for trial pending a
discussion of that matter at the pretrial conference following
discovery.
The Gilco case is designated as the lead action.
All
further filings shall be captioned and docketed in that case.
The court will issue a consolidated scheduling order this same
day that will set a single trial date.
If it is ultimately
determined that the cases should not be consolidated for trial,
this court, in consultation with counsel, will select the first
action for trial, which will proceed according to the trial date
set in the scheduling order.
The remaining two actions will
then be set for trial as expeditiously as possible thereafter.
The clerk is directed to transmit copies of this
written opinion and order to all counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.
ENTER:
September 2, 2011
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
5
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?