Opinion
Civil Action No. 5:02-CV-256-C
May 27, 2003
ORDER
On this date the Court considered American Automobile Insurance Company's ("American Auto") Motion for Consolidation filed April 30, 2003. Danny Mayfield ("Mayfield") filed no response. After considering all the relevant arguments and evidence, this Court GRANTS American Auto's Motion for Consolidation.
DISCUSSION
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, . . . 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." FED. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Consolidation does not "merge the suits into a single action or change the rights of the parties or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another"; rather, consolidation is "intended only as a procedural device used to promote judicial efficiency and economy" and "the actions maintain their separate identities." See Frazier v. Garrison I.S.D., 980 F.2d 1514, 1532 (5th Cir. 1993); In re: Propulsid Prods. Liab. Litigation, 208 F.R.D. 133, 141 (E.D. La. 2002).
A non-inclusive list of factors militating in favor of consolidation includes:
1. the cases proposed for consolidation are pending either before the same court for all purposes or before two different courts within the same judicial district;
2. the cases involve a common party;
3. the cases involve common issues of law;
4. the cases involve common issues of fact;
5. there is no risk of prejudice or possible confusion if the cases are consolidated, or if there is any risk, it is outweighed by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of factual and legal issues if the cases are tried separately;
6. consolidation will not result in an unfair advantage;
7. consolidation will conserve judicial resources;
8. consolidation will reduce the time for resolving the cases when compared to separate trials; and
9. consolidation will reduce the expense of trying the cases separately.See e.g., Frazier, 980 F.2d at 1531-32; St. Bernard Gen. Hosp. v. Hosp. Serv. Ass'n of New Orleans, Inc., 712 F.2d 978, 989-90 (5th Cir. 1983); Debruyne v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp. (In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litigation), 11 F.3d 368, 373-74 (2nd Cir. 1993); and Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495-96 (11th Cir. 1985).
Here, a thorough review of the relevant records reveals that American Automobile Insurance Company v. Danny Mayfield ("Case One"), Civil Action No. 5:02-CV-137-C, was filed in this Court on June 21, 2002, and remains pending before this Court. The instant matter, Danny Mayfield v. American Automobile Insurance Company ("Case Two"), Civil Action No. 5:02-CV-256-C, was removed to this Court on October 24, 2002, and remains pending before this Court.
In Case One, American Auto asks this Court to declare that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Mayfield under certain "Life Insurance Agents Errors and Omissions Liability Coverage" policies issued to Mayfield. In Case Two, Mayfield asks this Court to declare that American Auto has a duty to defend and indemnify Mayfield pursuant to the aforesaid policies and to require that American Auto perform its contractual duties under the policies and fairly and equitably settle any claims made against Mayfield.
The underlying policies in each of Case One and Case Two, as well as the antagonistic claims made by American Auto and Mayfield against the other, are based on common parties, common facts, and common issues of law. Whatever concomitant prejudice or possible confusion might result as a consequence of consolidating Case One and Case Two — and this Court finds none-is far outweighed by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of factual and legal issues if the cases are tried separately.
Significantly, both Case One and Case Two are set for trial on this Court's civil docket beginning the week of October 6, 2003. Because counsel for both Case One and Case Two must necessarily prepare for trial in anticipation of the early October trial setting, this Court finds that consolidation would not result in an unfair advantage to either party. Indeed, this Court is of the opinion that consolidation of the two cases would conserve judicial resources, would reduce the time for resolving the cases when compared to separate trials, and would reduce the expense of trying the cases separately.
Because all of the above factors weigh in favor of consolidation, this Court finds that consolidation of Case One and Case Two is not only appropriate, but would promote this Court's judicial efficiency and economy and would tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
CONCLUSION
After considering all the relevant arguments and evidence, this Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Consolidation of Actions. Pursuant to Local Rule 42.1, all subsequent "pleadings, motions, or other papers must only bear the caption [and Civil Action No. 5:02-CV-137-C] of the first case filed. All post-consolidation filings must also bear the legend `(Consolidated with 5:02-CV-256-C).'"
SO ORDERED.