Filmanatix LLC v. Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company et al.
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that Civil Action Number 2:20-cv-442 be CONSOLIDATED with Civil Action Number 2:20-cv-441; Civil Action Number 2:20-cv-441 shall be designated as the lead case and the matter shall proceed under that styling. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 7/20/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kew)
Case 2:20-cv-00442 Document 13 Filed 07/20/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 96
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
MELANGE CAFÉ LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00441
ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY &
CASUALTY COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
FILMANATIX LLC,
v.
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00442
ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY &
CASUALTY COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Upon review of the complaints filed in the above-styled matters, the Court observes that
the two cases involve similar factual and legal allegations. In addition, both cases involve the
same counsel and the same Defendants. The Court directed the parties to file any objections to
consolidations or positions with regard to the scope of consolidation no later than July 9, 2020.
No such objections have been filed.
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the consolidation of civil
actions. Rule 42(a) states that “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are
Case 2:20-cv-00442 Document 13 Filed 07/20/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 97
pending before the court, it may order . . . all the actions consolidated.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 42(a).
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has given district courts the following guidelines to apply
when considering a motion to consolidate actions:
The critical question for the district court . . . was whether [1] the specific risks of
prejudice and possible confusion were overborne by the risk of inconsistent
adjudications of common factual and legal issues, [2] the burden on the parties,
witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits. [3] the length
of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and [4] the
relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives.
Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 1982). However, “even where cases
involve some common issues of law or fact, consolidation may be inappropriate where individual
issues predominate.” Michael v. Wyeth, LLC, No. CIV.A. 2:04-0435, 2011 WL 1527581, at *2
(S.D.W. Va. Apr. 20, 2011) (Copenhaver, J.).
In both cases, the Plaintiffs are businesses that purchased Ultrapack Plus business insurance
from Defendant Erie Insurance. Both Plaintiffs allege losses as a result of the coronavirus
pandemic and the orders issued to combat the spread of the virus, including business closure
orders. Both cases allege the same causes of action against the same Defendants, with the same
factual basis. No party has objected, and the Court is unaware of any risk of prejudice or
confusion that could result from consolidation. Consolidation, particularly at this early stage, will
greatly reduce the burden on parties, counsel, witnesses and the Court, and will promote efficiency.
Wherefore, after careful consideration and without objection, the Court ORDERS that
Civil Action Number 2:20-cv-442 be CONSOLIDATED with Civil Action Number 2:20-cv-441.
Civil Action Number 2:20-cv-441 shall be designated as the lead case and the matter shall proceed
under that styling.
2
Case 2:20-cv-00442 Document 13 Filed 07/20/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 98
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
any unrepresented party.
ENTER:
3
July 20, 2020
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?