Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00083/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00083-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JANICE PIGOTT, et al., )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0083-WS-C

 )

SANIBEL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, )

Defendant. )

______________________________________________________________________________

SANIBEL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0691-WS-C

 )

CYNTHIA PRIOLET, et al., )

Defendants. )

ORDER

On October 16, 2007, the undersigned entered an Order (doc. 2) in Civil Action No. 07-

0691-WS-C, which was recently removed from state court, that, inter alia, stated as follows:

“[T]he parties are ordered, on or before October 26, 2007, to show cause why the instant action

should not be consolidated with Civil Action No. 07-0083-WS-C pursuant to Rule 42(a),

Fed.R.Civ.P.” The rationale for this directive was that, by all appearances, Civil Action No. 07-

0691-WS-C involves the same parties and the same factual and legal issues being litigated in

Janice Pigott, et al. v. Sanibel Development, LLC, Civil Action No. 07-0083-WS-C, such that it

would appear to be an exceedingly inefficient use of judicial and party resources to allow

precisely the same dispute to be litigated in two separate lawsuits in the same court before the

same judge. The law is clear that district courts are authorized to consolidate cases for trial sua

sponte, without a motion from the parties. See, e.g., Devlin v. Transportation Communications

Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2nd Cir. 1999) (“A district court can consolidate related cases

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte.”); Blasko v. Washington Metropolitan

Area Transit Authority, 243 F.R.D. 13, 15 (D.D.C. 2007) (“By its plain language, Rule 42(a)

permits sua sponte consolidation.”); Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 487 F. Supp.2d

Case 1:07-cv-00083-WS-C Document 55 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 3
-2-

1009, 1013-14 (S.D. Ill. 2007) (“A court may order consolidation sua sponte and, if need be,

over the objections of parties.”).

Defendants in 07-0691 submitted no response to the October 16 Order. Plaintiff did file

a response (doc. 8) in which it requested “that the causes of action in [this case] be consolidated

and tried with the cases involving these same parties now pending in this court, being Case No.

2007-CV-0083 and 2007-CV-00090 (consolidated under 2007-CV-00083).” (Doc. 8, at 1.)

The consolidation question is governed by Rule 42(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., which affords a

district court authority to order multiple actions consolidated “[w]hen actions involving a

common question of law or fact are pending before the court.” Id. The Eleventh Circuit has

explained that consolidation pursuant to Rule 42(a) “is permissive and vests a purely

discretionary power in the district court.” Young v. City of Augusta, 59 F.3d 1160, 1168 (11th

Cir. 1995) (quoting In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades, 549 F.2d 1006, 1013 (5th

Cir. 1977)). In exercising that discretion, district courts must weigh the risk of prejudice and

confusion wrought by consolidation against the risk of inconsistent rulings on common factual

and legal questions, the burden on the parties and the court, the length of time, and the relative

expense of proceeding with separate lawsuits if they are not consolidated. See Hendrix v.

Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985); Jackson v. Ford Consumer

Finance Co., 181 F.R.D. 537, 539 (N.D. Ga. 1998); State of Ohio ex rel. Montgomery v. Louis

Trauth Dairy, Inc., 163 F.R.D. 500, 503 (S.D. Ohio 1995) (in determining whether consolidation

is appropriate, “the court balances the value of time and effort saved by consolidation against the

inconvenience, delay, or expense increased by it”). “Actions that involve the same parties are

apt candidates for consolidation ... [and] consolidation is particularly appropriate when the

actions are likely to involve substantially the same witnesses and arise from the same series of

events or facts.” Blasko, 243 F.R.D. at 15; see also Vasquez Rivera v. Congar Int’l Corp., 241

F.R.D. 94, 95 (D.P.R. 2007) (explaining that consolidation is intended to avoid overlapping trials

containing duplicative proof, excess cost incurred by all parties and the government, and the

waste of valuable court time in the trial of repetitive claims, among other considerations).

Examination of these two virtually identical actions involving the same parties readily

confirms that there are considerable common questions of law and fact, that consolidation would

promote the interests of judicial economy and convenience, and that consolidation would not

Case 1:07-cv-00083-WS-C Document 55 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 3
-3-

appear likely to yield any substantial inconvenience, delay or expense for the Court or the

litigants. Simply put, 07-0691 is the declaratory judgment counterpart to the dispute concerning

condominium transactions that underlies 07-0083, with the legal issues and parties being

identical in all material respects in both cases. For these reasons, and given plaintiff’s consent to

consolidation and defendants’ failure to articulate any objection despite ample opportunity to do

so, the Court exercises its discretion in favor of consolidating these actions, pursuant to Rule

42(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., for all purposes, including discovery and trial. The Clerk of the Court is

hereby directed to extract documents 1 through 8 from Civil Action No. 07-0691-WS-C and to

make those documents a part of the court file in Civil Action No. 07-0083-WS-C.

The Court finds that there is no present reason to maintain Civil Action No. 07-0691-WSC as an open file. Therefore, the Clerk is directed to submit a JS-6 to the Administrative Office

which indicates that this file is statistically closed and thus removed from the pending docket of

this Court. The Clerk shall thereafter maintain that file as a closed file. To avoid any confusion,

and given that 07-0691 will henceforth be a closed file that has been swallowed whole by 07-

0083, the parties are ordered not to include the caption of 07-0691 in any future filings in this

action and not to file any pleadings directly in 07-0691. Rather, all future filings in these

consolidated proceedings should be made exclusively in 07-0083.

DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00083-WS-C Document 55 Filed 11/01/07 Page 3 of 3