Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Middleton Planting Company v. Valley View Agri, LLC, et al.; Middleton Planting Company v. Valley View Agri, LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
• Decided: December 4, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00129
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION

MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF MIDDLETON PLANTING COMPANY PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:25-cv-129-DMB-JMV

VALLEY VIEW AGRI, LLC, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

And

MIDDLETON PLANTING COMPANY PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:25-cv-161-DMB-DAS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING DISCOVERY AND FOR THE SCHEDULING OF DEADLINES THROUGH THE TIME FOR FILING DAUBERT AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

This matter is before the Court on the Unopposed1 Motion to Consolidate Cases filed by Defendant Valley View Agri, LLC [Doc. 26] in 4:25-cv-129-DMB-JMV. For the reasons explained below, the two cases shall be consolidated for purposes of conducting discovery, and they shall have the same scheduling deadlines through the filing of Daubert and dispositive motions. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the court may consolidate actions before it which involve common questions of law or fact. In the Fifth Circuit, “district judges have been ‘urged to make good use of Rule 42(a) in order to expedite trial and eliminate unnecessary

1 During the telephonic status conference held on December 1, 2025, before the undersigned, counsel for all parties who have appeared in both of the consolidated cases appeared. Counsel verbalized agreement that at this juncture, the cases should be consolidated for discovery purposes, as well as for Daubert and dispositive motions deadlines for scheduling purposes only. repetition and confusion,’” even where consolidation is opposed by the parties. In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on December 29, 1972, 549 F.2d 1006, 1013 (5th Cir. 1977) (quoting Gentry v. Smith, 487 F.2d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 1973)). Courts consider eight factors in determining whether consolidation is appropriate: (1) whether the actions are pending before the

same court, (2) whether common parties are involved in the cases, (3) whether there are common questions of law and/or fact, (4) whether there is a risk of prejudice or confusion if the cases are consolidated, and if so, is the risk outweighed by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of factual and legal issues if the cases are tried separately, (5) whether consolidation will conserve judicial resources, (6) whether consolidation will result in an unfair advantage, (7) whether consolidation will reduce the time for resolving the cases, and (8) whether consolidation will reduce the cost of trying the cases separately. Kodaco Co., LTD. v. Valley Tool, Inc., No. 3:23CV211-GHD-JMV, 2023 WL 7663438, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 14, 2023). It appears that all factors relevant to consolidating the cases for the purpose of conducting discovery and for the scheduling of deadlines through the filing of Daubert and dispositive motions favor consolidation in this instance.

The Court, having considered the applicable law, finds that in light of the relatedness of the cases, both cases should be consolidated for purposes of conducting discovery, and shall have the same scheduling deadlines through the filing of Daubert and dispositive motions. The parties are instructed to spread all docket entries across both cases, and the parties shall use the following case caption: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION

MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF MIDDLETON PLANTING COMPANY PLAINTIFF

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Consolidate ([Doc. 26] in 4:25-cv- 129-DMB-JMV) is hereby GRANTED, and both cases are consolidated for purposes of conducting discovery and shall have the same scheduling deadlines through the filing of Daubert and dispositive motions. SO ORDERED this the 4th day of December, 2025.

/s/ Jane M. Virden UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE