United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division
ORDER
MAX O.
COGBURN JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS
MATTER is before the court on plaintiffs' Motion
to Consolidate Related Cases with United States v. Robert
Neal Hatfield [5:17cv121]. The issues have been fully briefed
by respective counsel in this action, an appropriate Notice
(#19) has been filed in the 5:17cv121 action, and counsel for
the United States of America, therein, has interposed no
objection.
Rule
42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits
consolidation “[i]f actions before the court involve a
common question of law of fact.” The rule provides
courts with discretion over whether to consolidate actions
for trial. See Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.,
681 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 1982). Courts considering
consolidation should evaluate:
(1) whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible
confusion [are] overborne by the risk of inconsistent
adjudications of common factual and legal issues,
(2) burden on the parties,
(3) witnesses and available judicial resources posed by
multiple lawsuits,
(4) the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as
against a single one, and
(5) the relative expense to all concerned of the
single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives.
Id. at 193. Generally, under Rule 42(a), when two
causes of action involve common witnesses, identical
evidence, and similar issues, judicial economy will generally
favor consolidation. See Johnson v. Celotex Corp.,
899 F.2d 1281, 1284-85 (2d Cir. 1990). Consolidation of
actions involving common questions of law and fact also
avoids the risk of inconsistent judgments. Switzenbaum v.
Orbital Scis. Corp., 187 F.R.D. 246, 248 (E.D. Va.
1999). Nevertheless, “even where cases involve some
common issues of law or fact, consolidation may be
inappropriate where individual issues predominate.”
Michael v. Wyeth, LLC, 2011 WL 1527581, at *2
(S.D.W.Va. Apr. 20, 2011) (Copenhaver, J.) (internal
quotations omitted).
Two
actions are now pending before the undersigned stemming from
the same alleged conduct. In this action, plaintiffs Miranda
Russell and Ruth Heckman (“plaintiffs”) filed
suit against defendant Robert Hatfield, alleging violations
of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631
(the “FHA”). In United States v. Robert Neal
Hatfield, 5:17-cv-121 (W.D. N.C. ), the government
asserts violations of the FHA against the same defendant.
While this action involves alleged violations of the FHA
against these two plaintiff and the later-filed action
involves allegations of a pattern and/or practice, the
conduct which is alleged is identical. The Court has reviewed
the allegations asserted by way of the complaints filed in
each case, and agrees with the plaintiffs herein that common
issues of law and fact predominate. The Court also agrees
with plaintiff that judicial economy favors consolidation.
Such consolidation will serve judicial economy and avoid
duplication of efforts and the risk of inconsistent results.
The
Court has considered the Arnold factors set forth
supra and finds that they all weigh in favor of
consolidation or are neutral. The risk that defendant will
suffer prejudice if these matters are consolidated is
nonexistent or negligible. Consolidation will eliminate
duplication of efforts by the parties and the Court. While
the Court has considered carefully defendant's argument
concerning witnesses, the fact of the matter is that all the
witnesses in this case could and likely would be called by
the government in the later filed case, and vice
versa.
Furthermore,
if consolidated, a jury would be presented with all the
testimony in one action, avoiding the possibility of
inconsistent judgments. The harm that could be caused by
inconsistent judgments is extends well beyond the parties to
this case, as public confidence in the judicial system can be
undermined if such were to occur. Consolidating these matters
will also reduce the burden (temporally and financially) on
the parties and the Court by avoiding avoid duplicative
efforts in discovery, motions practice, mediation, and, if
needed, trial.
The
Court has also considered defendant's argument that by
joining the two actions, plaintiffs' case is bolstered by
the presence of the United States as a co-plaintiff. While
that is certainly possible, the exact opposite argument could
be made as the presence of government can also be considered
a negative, especially in some former divisions of this
district. The possibility that the presence of the government
will somehow lend credence to the individual plaintiffs is
neutralized by this Court's routine instruction
concerning the jury's duty to treat all parties as being
of equal worth. Further, if this matter makes it to trial,
the Court will allow some voir dire on whether
prospective jurors would be fair where the government is a
party.
Ultimately,
the court finds that consolidation of the above-captioned
action cases is warranted given the common factual and legal
issues and the judicial efficiencies ...