Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02261/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02261-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kathy L. Jamieson,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

Lawrence B. Slater and Jane Doe Slater;

James Bret Marchant and Jane Doe

Marchant; Monica Jagelski and John Doe

Jagelski, 

Defendants. 

Monica Jagelski, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Kathy Marchant (aka Jamieson), 

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 06-1524-PHX-SMM (Lead)

CV 06-2261-PHX-LOA (Cons.)

ORDER

 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Kathy Jamieson’s Motion to Consolidate. 

(Dkt. 11.) Plaintiff Jamieson seeks to consolidate this action with an action filed against

her by one of the named defendants in Jamieson’s action: CV 06-2261-PHX-LOA. 

Plaintiff Monica Jagelski has filed no response to the Motion to Consolidate in her action

against Jamieson or in Jamieson’s action against her. Similarly defendants in the present

Case 2:06-cv-02261-SMM Document 16 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 3
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 -

case, Lawrence B. Slater, Slater & Associates, and James Marchant, have not filed any

response to the Motion to Consolidate. Pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i), when an opposing party

fails to file a response to a motion, the failure to file may be deemed a consent to the

motion. Because Plaintiff/defendant Jagelski and defendants Slater, Slater & Associates,

and Marchant have not opposed Plaintiff Jamieson’s Motion to Consolidate, they are

deemed to have consented to consolidation.

Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]hen actions

involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may . . . order

all the actions consolidated.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). Similarly, LRCiv 42.1 provides that

consolidation is appropriate when two or more cases are pending before different Judges

and any party believes that such cases, inter alia, “arise from substantially the same

transaction or event” or “involve substantially the same parties or property.” 

In the present case, CV-06-1524, Plaintiff Jamieson alleges that Plaintiff/defendant

Jagelski conspired with defendants Slater, Slater & Associates, and Marchant to

unlawfully acquire real property belonging to Jamieson. In the case currently pending

before Judge Anderson, CV-06-2261, Plaintiff/defendant Jagelski seeks to quiet title in,

or, alternatively, partition, property belonging to Jamieson that is at issue in the CV 06-

1524 case. The Court finds consolidation to be appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a) and

LRCiv 42.1 because there is no dispute that Case No. CV-06-2261-PHX-LOA arises from

substantially the same transaction or event, involves the same property, and involves

substantially the same parties as in the instant case. Because both cases involve a common

question of fact, judicial economy favors consolidation. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff Kathy Jamieson’s Motion to

Consolidate. (Dkt. 11.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future filings relating to these cases shall

be filed in CV 06-1524-PHX-SMM.

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:06-cv-02261-SMM Document 16 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be provided to

Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson.

DATED this 18th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02261-SMM Document 16 Filed 12/21/06 Page 3 of 3