UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICK BUCCIARELLI and RICK

BUCCIARELLI & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE

CO.,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 2:08-cv-14349

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION (docket no. 9)

The individual plaintiff in this case, Rick Bucciarelli, was formerly an insurance agent

for the defendant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”). The gravamen

of his complaint is that Nationwide induced him to take out loans in order to expand his

business by promising him that it would pay off the loans if he met certain performance

targets, but that it fraudulently used incorrect data and assumptions in calculating those

targets, rendering the goals much more difficult to reach than Nationwide led Bucciarelli to

believe.

Bucciarelli is not the only Nationwide agent who believes he was wronged by this loan

program. Two cases pending before other judges in this district involve claims arising out

of a similar loan arrangement. See Bye v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., case no.

2:08-cv-12213, and Boeve v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., case no. 2:08-cv-12213.

Currently before the Court is Bucciarelli’s motion to consolidate his action with those two.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 permits a court to consolidate cases or portions

of cases that are already before it, if they involve a common question of law or fact. The

instant motion, however, is for consolidation of a single case before this Court with two

2:08-cv-14349-SJM-PJK Doc # 25 Filed 04/09/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 386
2

cases not currently before it. To effect such a consolidation, this case would first have to

be reassigned to one of the judges hearing Bye or Boeve. Local Rule 83.11(b) permits the

judge to whom a civil case is assigned to reassign the case only (1) “[t]o promote judicial

efficiency,” or (2) when the case is a companion case to one that was previously filed.

Companion cases are defined as “those cases in which it appears that: (i) substantially

similar evidence will be offered at trial, or (ii) the same or related parties are present, and

the cases arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.” Local Rule 83.11(b)(7)(A).

This Court does not regard this case as a companion to Bye or Boeve. The cases

arise out of separate transactions and occurrences – the various loans that were taken out

by the respective plaintiffs – and for that reason each will require an entirely separate set

of trial evidence. Nor does the Court view this case as an appropriate one to transfer for

purposes of judicial efficiency. Like Bye and Boeve, this case does potentially present the

question of the applicability of Michigan’s Franchise Investment Law to Nationwide’s

insurance agency agreements. The factual variations between the various cases, however,

appear to the undersigned to be too great to justify whatever marginal efficiency gains

might result from consolidation for this purpose.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for consolidation is

DENIED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: April 9, 2009

2:08-cv-14349-SJM-PJK Doc # 25 Filed 04/09/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 387
3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on April 9, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Alissa Greer 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14349-SJM-PJK Doc # 25 Filed 04/09/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 388