Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05357/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05357-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Reese M. Jones,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

 Deutsche Bank AG, et al.,

Defendant(s).

 /

NO. C 04-05357 JW 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Reese M. Jones’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Consolidate. 

Plaintiff argues that the present case (“the Jones action”) should be consolidated with the case of Neal

M. Douglas, et al. v. United States America, Case No. C-03-4518 JW (“the Douglas action”), a case

previously determined by this Court to be related to the present case pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12(b). 

Plaintiff contends that consolidation would be in the interests of judicial economy since both actions

arise from the Plaintiffs’ participation in a tax shelter known as “CARDS,” and both cases will

involve discovery from the alleged promoters of CARDS. All of the Defendants in this action, as well

as the parties in the Douglas action, oppose Plaintiff’s motion.

The Court held a hearing on the matter on June 6, 2005. Based on all of the arguments made at

the hearing and in the parties’ briefs, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s Motion to

Consolidate.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides for consolidation “[w]hen actions involving a

common question of law or fact are pending before the court....” FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). To determine

whether to consolidate, a court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 132 Filed 08/12/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

delay, confusion and prejudice caused by consolidation.” Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Mach.

Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 

Here, the Court finds that the significant potential for confusion, inefficiency and prejudice far

outweighs the minimal convenience that may result from the consolidation of the Jones and Douglas

actions. The law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP (“McDermott”) represents Plaintiffs Neal

and Christine Douglas in the Douglas action and the Chenery Defendants in the Jones action. If the

two actions were consolidated for all pre-trial purposes, McDermott would be in the precarious

position of having to represent two clients in the same action with unique, and possibly competing,

legal interests. The Court declines to put McDermott, and its clients, in this potentially prejudicial

position. 

The Court, however, is persuaded that the interest of judicial economy would be best served

by consolidating the pretrial proceedings of the two actions with respect to third party witnesses who

would otherwise be called upon for discovery in both actions. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate

is denied for all purposes, with the limited exception of mutual third party witnesses. Should the

parties find a need for suitable protective orders with respect to third party witnesses, the parties are

referred to Magistrate Judge Seeborg for further proceedings. 

Dated: August 12, 2005

04cv5357consol

 /s/ James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 132 Filed 08/12/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Amy Lynn Rice arice@gwwe.com

Arturo Esteban Sandoval asandoval@mwe.com

Christine Chi cchi@dbllp.com

Christopher Kliefoth ckliefoth@mwe.com

David S. McLeod dmcleod@dbllp.com

Jason A. Carey jacarey@mwe.com

Jeffrey R. Witham jwitham@dbllp.com

Jennifer L. Jonak jenny@jonak.com

Jill M. Kastner jkastner@mwe.com

Megan Christine Roth mroth@watsonlawgroup.com

Sarah E. Hancur shancur@mwe.com

Stephen Allen Watson swatson@watsonlawgroup.com

William M. Lukens wlukens@lukenslaw.com

Dated: August 12, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /jwchambers/ 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 132 Filed 08/12/05 Page 3 of 3