CLARK
v.
HERCULES, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the motion to consolidate cases without prejudice because the related case was assigned to a different judge and required a transfer procedure first. The court also denied other motions as moot or deferred ruling on dispositive motions pending a ruling on a motion to amend.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, moved to consolidate this case with another case assigned to a different judge. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, an…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 42(A) Consolidation cases and more on FLexlaw
NOVO, RAYMOND L. WILLIAMS, STEVE M. LUCKS and ZACK SILVERMAN,
Defendants. /
ORDER1
Before the Court are several Motions. The Court takes each in turn. Because the Court writes for the parties—who are familiar with the facts and issues—it only includes what is necessary to explain the rulings below. Considering Plaintiff is pro se, the Court liberally construes his filings. United States v. Cordero, 7 F. 4th 1058, 1068 n.11 (11th Cir. 2021). And as with all pro
First, the Court denies two Motions. The parties each filed Amended Motions, so their original filings are moot (Docs. 12; 39). Second, Plaintiff moves to consolidate this case with one assigned to Judge Badalamenti (Clark v. Hercules Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00261-JLB-NPM (M.D.
Fla.)). The Court denies without prejudice. Federal courts may consolidate actions with common issues of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Local Rule 1.07(b) explains the process for consolidating cases in the Middle District. But that Rule only contemplates consolidation of cases assigned to the same judge. See Local Rule 1.07(b) (addressing “actions assigned to a judge” and empowering “[t]he judge” to consolidate); Shen Yi, LLC v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., No. 2:21-cv-66-NPM, 2021 WL 2592504, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2021). Again, the case Plaintiff wants consolidated is before Judge Badalamenti. So the Court cannot consolidate right now. Before seeking consolidation, Plaintiff would need to follow the transfer procedure set out in Local Rule 1.07(a)(2)(B). This provision allows a party to seek transfer of a related, second-filed case to the same judge as the first-filed
2021) (“Yet the Court does not have the power to simply pluck cases away from other federal judges around Florida.”). So the Court denies the Amended Motion to Consolidate for now. And third, Defendants have an Amended Motion to Dismiss pending (Doc. 13), which Plaintiff moves to strike (Doc. 28). But the Court will not address them today because Plaintiff also has an opposed Motion to Amend pending (Doc. 48)—which might render the dispositive motions moot. After Judge McCoy rules on the Motion to Amend, the Court will address the dispositive motions as necessary. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is DENIED as moot.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases (Doc. 39) is DENIED as moot. 3. Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Consolidate Cases (Doc. 41) is DENIED without prejudice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 28, 2022.
, Lh platrathe 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record