Free Order on Motion to Consolidate Cases - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:02-cv-01993-WYD-BNB

Document 118

Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Wiley Y. Daniel Civil Action No. 02-cv-01993-WYD-BNB JEFFREY SCOTT BEEBE, Plaintiff, v. PEGGY HEIL, et al., Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff' Rule 42(a) Motion for s Consolidation filed September 9, 2005. The motion seeks to consolidate this case with a recently filed case, Civil Action No. 05-cv-01720-RPM-OES, Beebe v. Ortiz [hereinafter " Beebe II" Beebe II was filed in this Court on September 2, 2005. For the ]. reasons stated below, the motion is denied. FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) provides 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 at issue in the actions; 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." The decision whether to consolidate is committed to the discretion of the trial court. See Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (citing American Employer' Ins. Co. v. King Resources Co., 545 F.2d 1264 (10th Cir. s 1976)).

Case 1:02-cv-01993-WYD-BNB

Document 118

Filed 11/17/2005

Page 2 of 2

I find that the cases should not be consolidated. While there may be commonality of facts and/or issues, the cases are in very different stages of litigation. This case has been pending since 2002, discovery is completed, and cross motions for summary judgment are pending. Beebe II has just recently been filed, no discovery has been conducted, and a Scheduling Conference has not yet been held. While Plaintiff represents that the 2005 case could be decided on pleadings within a few months of a decision in this case, this is speculation. Further, the motion to dismiss filed in Beebe II could be denied, and the parties may then need to conduct discovery in order to file summary judgment motions or proceed to trial. Finally, I note that this case involves additional Defendants that are not sued in Beebe II. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff' Rule 42(a) Motion for Consolidate filed September 9, s 2005, is DENIED. Dated: November 17, 2005 BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel Wiley Y. Daniel U. S. District Judge