Brophy v. Adkins

• Court: District Court, D. Montana
• Decided: September 25, 2020
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00116
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

TRACY BROPHY, CV 20-116-BLG-SPW-TJC Consolidated with Plaintiff, CV 20-117-BLG-SPW-TJC

vs. ORDER GRANTING MS DIRECTIONAL, LLC’S ARCHIE ADKINS and MS UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIRECTIONAL, LLC, CONSOLIDATE

Defendants.

Defendant MS Directional, LLC (“MS Directional”) has filed an Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Case No. 1:20-cv-116 with Case No. 1:20-cv-117. (Doc. 6.) MS Directional seeks to consolidate these two cases and Plaintiffs do not object. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides: Consolidation. If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may:

(1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Consolidation of actions provides “a valuable and important tool of judicial administration ... [that] helps relieve[] the parties and the [c]ourt of the burden of duplicative pleadings and [c]ourt orders.” Blasko v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 243 F.R.D. 13, 15 (D. D.C. 2007) (citations omitted). To determine whether consolidation is appropriate, a court should “weigh

considerations of convenience and economy against considerations of confusion and prejudice.” Id. Generally, consolidation may be appropriate if there are common questions of law or fact. Cases that involve the same parties are also apt

candidates for consolidation. Id. “Moreover, 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.” Id. Here, Case No. 1:20-cv-116 and Case No. 1:20-cv-117 involve the same or

similar parties. In 1:20-cv-116 Tracy Brophy (“Brophy”) brought suit against Archie Adkins (“Adkins”) and MS Directional. In Case No. 1:20-cv-117, Rory V. Hotomanie (“Hotomanie”) brought suit against Adkins and MS Directional. Both

actions arise from a car accident that occurred on or about February 16, 2019 between Brophy and Adkins, who was an employee of Defendant MS Directional at the time. Hotomanie was a passenger in the vehicle driven by Brophy. Both cases involve claims for negligence, negligence per se against Adkins, and

vicarious liability against MS Directional. As a result, resolution of both cases involves the same issues of fact and law. Therefore, the Court finds consolidation will save time and effort and will not result in inconvenience, delay, or expense to

any party. Further, Plaintiff’s do not oppose consolidation, and it is not readily apparent that any party would suffer unfair prejudice were the Court to consolidate the actions. Thus, the Court deems consolidation of Case No. 1:20-cv-116 and Case No. 1:20-cv-117 appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant MS Directional’s Unopposed Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. Case No. 1:20-cv-116 is hereby consolidated with Case No. 1:20-cv-117 for all purposes. Case No. 1:20-cv-116 shall be the lead case and all pleadings shall be docketed to this case until further notice of the Court. The Clerk shall file a copy of this Order in Case No. 1:20-cv- 117. IT IS ORDERED. DATED this 25th day of September, 2020.

TIMOTHY J.'CAVAN United States Magistrate Judge