Bowles v. Sabree

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

MATTHEW SANDERS and BRIANNE SANDERS,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 23-cv-10789 Honorable Linda V. Parker COUNTY OF WAYNE, et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________________/

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASE

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) authorizes consolidation of actions that involve a common question of law or fact. Whether a case should be consolidated is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. See Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir. 1993). “The objective of consolidation is to administer the court’s business with expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties.” Gamboa v. Ford Motor Co., 381 F. Supp. 3d 853, 866 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (citing Advey v. Celotex Corp., 962 F.2d 1177, 1181 (6th Cir. 1992)). Courts weigh the interests of judicial economy against the potential for new delays, expense, confusion, or prejudice. See Banacki v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 276 F.R.D. 567, 571 (E.D. Mich. 2011). The present matter and Bowles v. Sabree, Case No. 23-cv-10973, share common questions of law and fact as they both stem from alleged actions by

Wayne County in retaining surplus proceeds or equity from the former owners of tax foreclosed properties, and the constitutionality of those actions under Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, 952 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. 2020). Consolidation will

promote judicial economy and parties will not be prejudiced. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall CONSOLIDATE this matter with Bowles v. Sabree, Case No. 23-cv-10973.

s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: October 26, 2023