Grace, et al v. Sparks, et al
Filing
60
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 58 MOTION by Tina M. Grace, Larry Grace to consolidate cases 2:15-cv-00281 and 2:15-cv-01505, and 31 MOTION by Michael Thornsbury to Strike 1 Complaint; directing that Civil Action Nos. 2:15-cv-01505 and 2:15-cv -00281 are consolidated; the second-filed action is designated as the lead case; all further filings shall be captioned and docketed in that case; the motion to strike the complaint in Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00281 is denied.Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 10/6/2015. (cc: counsel of record) (tmh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
TINA M. GRACE and
LARRY GRACE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No.: 2:15-01505
(Lead action)
C. MICHAEL SPARKS and
MICHAEL THORNSBURY and
JAY LOCKARD, individually and in
their (former) official capacity, and
THE WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS and
STEVEN D. CANTERBURY, its administrator, and
THE MINGO COUNTY COMMISSION, together with its
present (and former) commissioner(s) and
in their (his) official capacity, and
GREG SMITH and JOHN MARK HUBBARD and
DIANE HANNAH and DAVID L. BAISDEN and
MINGO COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendants.
TINA M. GRACE and
LARRY GRACE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No.: 2:15-00281
C. MICHAEL SPARKS and
MICHAEL THORNSBURY and
JAY LOCKARD, individually and in
their (former) official capacity, and
THE WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS and
STEVEN D. CANTERBURY, its administrator, and
THE MINGO COUNTY COMMISSION and
MINGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
in their official capacity,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending are the plaintiffs’ motions to consolidate the
above-styled civil actions, filed June 16, 2015 in Civil Action
No. 2:15-00281 and June 17, 2015 in Civil Action No. 2:15-01505,
and the motion by defendant Michael Thornsbury to strike the
complaint in Civil Action No. 2:15-00281, filed March 30, 2015.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) covers the
matter of consolidation and provides as follows:
(a) Consolidation. 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) consolidate the actions; or
(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost
or delay.
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 42(a).
Our court of appeals has given the district courts a
wide berth on 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
2
F.R.Civ.P. 42(a) to consolidate causes pending in the same
district.”)
Nevertheless, the court of appeals has also
provided guidelines for district courts engaging in the
discretionary exercise.
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 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.
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(f) allows the court to strike
pleadings of “an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”
Rule 12(f)
motions to strike “are generally viewed with disfavor ‘because
striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy and because
it is often sought by the movant simply as a dilatory tactic.’”
Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347
(4th Cir. 2001) (quoting 5A A. Charles Alan Wright & Arthur
Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1380, 647 (2d ed. 1990).
Although there are often risks of confusion and
3
prejudice attendant to a consolidation, the potential for
inconsistent adjudications is an overriding concern here.
The
two above-styled actions are nearly identical, with the
exception that the latter-filed action includes additional
defendants Greg Smith, John Mark Hubbard, Diane Hannah, David L.
Baisden, and the Mingo County Board of Education.
Apart from
their additional claims against these defendants, plaintiffs
assert essentially the same claims in both actions.
All claims
relate to the same underlying events.
The court notes that rather than filing a second
action barely one month after filing their initial complaint,
the plaintiffs could have proceeded by amending their complaint
to add additional defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
15(a).
However, given the current status of each case,
consolidation is appropriate.
The court is unaware of any
significant burden consolidation might visit upon the parties,
witnesses, or available judicial resources.
Court resources
would be impacted negatively by the continued progression of two
separate actions involving essentially the same claims and
parties.
In his motion to strike the complaint in Civil Action
4
No. 2:15-00281, defendant Thornsbury argues that forcing
defendants to defend two identical lawsuits would be inefficient
and prejudicial.
Plaintiffs respond that they oppose the motion
to strike the prior complaint because in their view defendants
may seek to assert a defense based on the statute of
limitations.
As noted above, the remedy of striking a pleading
is disfavored.
Consolidation of these actions will achieve the
same efficiencies sought by defendant Thornsbury without
prejudice to either side.
The court, accordingly, ORDERS the above-styled civil
actions be, and they hereby are, consolidated.
action is designated as the lead case.
The second-filed
All further filings
shall be captioned and docketed in that case.
Having ordered
the cases consolidated, the court ORDERS that the motion to
strike the complaint in Civil Action No. 2:15-00281 be, and it
hereby is, denied.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this
written opinion and order to all counsel of record.
DATED:
October 5, 2015
Judge 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?