Harrison v. SquareTwo Financial Corporation

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER pursuant to the 10 MOTION to consolidate cases 2:15-cv-11425 and 2:15-cv-11426; directing that these civil actions are consolidated; the first-filed action, Civil Action No. 2:15-11425, is designated as the lead case ; all further filings to be captioned and docketed in that case; the cases consolidated, directing that the scheduling conference in Civil Action No. 2:15-11426 is cancelled. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 12/15/2015. (cc: counsel of record) (taq)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
BRENDA G. HARRISON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:15-11425

SQUARETWO FINANCIAL CORPORATION
DBA CACH, LLC,
Defendant.

BRENDA G. HARRISON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:15-11426

TAYLOR LAW, PLLC and MEGAN URBAN,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending is defendant SquareTwo Financial Corporation’s
motion, filed November 15, 2015 in Civil Action No. 2:15-11425,
to consolidate that action with Civil Action No. 2:15-11426.

On

December 3, 2015, Taylor Law, PLLC and Megan Urban, the
defendants in Civil Action No. 2:15-11426, filed a consent to
consolidation of these actions.

Brenda G. Harrison, the

plaintiff in both actions, has filed no response to the motion
to consolidate.

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
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
2

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.

Although there are often risks of confusion and
prejudice attendant to a consolidation, the potential for
inconsistent adjudications is an overriding concern here.

In

each action, the plaintiff seeks to recover based on alleged
violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection
Act, W. Va. Code §§ 46A-2-127 and 128, and various provisions of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.
The plaintiffs’ alleged injury in both actions stems from the
same factual circumstances involving the defendants’ attempts to
collect on the same purported credit card debt.

It appears to

the court that the actions will involve adjudication of
essentially the same factual and legal issues.

Given the

similarity between the complaints filed in each action, it
appears that handling these matters separately would result in a
great deal of duplication of effort for the parties as well as
the court.

3

The court, accordingly, ORDERS the above-styled civil
actions be, and they hereby are, consolidated.

The first-filed

action, Civil Action No. 2:15-11425, is designated as the lead
case.

All further filings shall be captioned and docketed in

that case.

Having ordered the cases consolidated, the court

ORDERS that the scheduling conference in Civil Action No. 2:1511426 be, and it hereby is, cancelled.

The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this
written opinion and order to all counsel of record.
DATED:

December 15, 2015

Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge

4