-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01732-WYD-BNB

MITCHELL PINSLY, derivatively on behalf of JANUS CAPITAL GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVEN L. SCHEID, et al.,

Defendants.

and

JANUS CAPITAL GROUP, INC,

Nominal Defendant.

_________________________________________________________________

Consolidated with

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02142-WYD-BNB 

CHARLES D. SWANSON, derivatively on behalf of JANUS CAPITAL GROUP, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RICHARD M. WEIL, et al.,

Defendants, 

and 

JANUS CAPITAL GROUP, INC, 

Nominal Defendant. 

ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Mitchell Pinsly’s Unopposed

Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and for Appointment of Lead and Liaison
-2-

Counsel filed September 8, 2011. The motion seeks to consolidate Civil Action No. 11-

cv-02142-CMA-KLM with the case pending before me, Civil Action No. 11-cv-01732-

WYD-BNB pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1. Because the

lowest numbered case is assigned to me, I must decide whether consolidation is

appropriate pursuant to Local Rule 42.1.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) states that “[w]hen actions involving a common question of

law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all

the matters in issue in the action; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may

make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary

costs or delay.” Consolidation is within the discretion of the trial court. Gillette Motor

Transport v. N. Okla. Butane Co., 179 F.2d 711, 712 (10th Cir. 1950). 

Upon review of the files in these cases, I find that the two cases involve common

questions of law and fact and should be consolidated. Both cases are shareholder

derivative actions filed on behalf of Janus Capital Group, Inc. against certain of the Company’s

current and former officers and directors related to the same facts. Both actions present

substantially identical issues and relate to whether Janus’ directors and certain senior officers

breached their fiduciary obligations to the Company and its stockholders. 

I now turn to the request in the motion that the Weiser Law Firm, P.C. be appointed as

Plaintiffs’ lead counsel and the Shuman Law Firm as Liaison Counsel. Plaintiff asserts that a

court which has consolidated actions may, at its discretion, appoint Lead Counsel (and Liaison

Counsel) to prosecute the consolidated cases. The motion represents that this request is 
-3-

unopposed in Case No. 11-cv-01732 and opposed in 11-cv-02142. I defer ruling on this

issue until the matter has been fully briefed. 

Based on the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that Plaintiff Mitchell Pinsly’s Unopposed Motion to Consolildate

Related Actions and for Appointment of Lead and Liaison Counsel (ECF No. 27) is

GRANTED to the extent it requests consolidation and DEFERRED to the extent it asks

for Appointment of Lead and Liaison Counsel. In accordance therewith, it is

ORDERED that Swanson v. Weil, et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-02142-CMA-KLM

shall be assigned to me and consolidated with this case for all further purposes. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that as of the date of this Order, all pleadings and other

filings shall be filed in the earlier numbered case, 11-cv-01732, using the caption

appearing in this Order. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Civil Action No. 11-cv-02142 shall hereafter be

referred to the magistrate judge assigned to the lowest case, in this case Magistrate

Judge Boland. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall docket this Order in Case No.

11-cv-02142. Finally, it is

ORDERED that the later filed case shall hereafter be designated as Civil Action

No. 11-cv-02142-WYD-BNB.
-4-

Dated: September 13, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

Wiley Y. Daniel

Chief United States District Judge