Devlin v. Transportation Communications International Union (1999)

Commc’ns Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121 , 131–32 (2d Cir. 1999) (“We review a district court’s ruling on motions under [Rules 59 and 60] for . . . abuse of discretion.”).

Devlin, 175 F.3d at 131-32.

Devlin, 175 F.3d at 131-32.

In assessing the appropriate course of action, “a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy . . . . [mindful that] efficiency cannot be permitted to prevail at the expense of justice . . . .” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130.

Consolidation is favored “to avoid unnecessary costs or delay,” id. at 1284 , and to “expedite trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion,” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130 (internal citations omitted).

In assessing the appropriate course of action, “a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy . . . . [mindful that] efficiency cannot be permitted to prevail at the expense of justice . . . .” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130.

“A district court can consolidate related cases under [Rule 42(a)] sua sponte.” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130.

In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, “[t]he trial court has broad discretion,” Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281 , 1284–85 (2d Cir. 1990), and “should consider both equity and judicial economy,” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130.

In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, “[t]he trial court has broad discretion,” Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281 , 1284–85 (2d Cir. 1990), and “should consider both equity and judicial economy,” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130.

Consolidation of actions under Rule 42(a) is “a valuable and important tool of judicial administration.” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130 (internal quotations omitted).

Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130.

Comm. Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121 , 130 (2d Cir. 1999) (“A district court can consolidate related cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte.”)).

In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130 (citation omitted).

The Second Circuit has instructed that, when determining whether consolidation is appropriate, “efficiency cannot be permitted to prevail at the expense of justice — consolidation should be considered when savings of expense and gains of efficiency can be accomplished without sacrifice of justice.” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Second Circuit has instructed that, when determining whether consolidation is appropriate, “efficiency cannot be permitted to prevail at the expense of justice — consolidation should be considered when savings of expense and gains of efficiency can be accomplished without sacrifice of justice.” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130 (citation omitted).

Commc’ns Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121 , 130 (2d Cir. 1999) (“A district court can consolidate related cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte.”)). discretion requires weighing the risk of prejudice and confusion that could be caused by consolidation against considerations of judicial economy and the prejudice that duplicative litigation may cause, among other considerations.

When actions are consolidated, they are “join[ed] together ... without ... los[ing] their independent character.” Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S. 59, 66 (2018). “�e proper solution to the problems created by the existence of two or more cases involving the same parties and issues, simultaneously pending in the same court [is] to consolidate them under Rule 42(a).” Devlin v. Transportation Communications International Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).

Sept. 3, 2021) (“Rule 42 is ‘invoked to expedite trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion,’ and it vests a district court with broad discretion to consolidate actions, even to do so sua sponte”) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Devlin v. Transportation Communications International Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999)).

Comm. Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121 , 130 (2d Cir. 1999) (“A district court can consolidate related cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte.”)). case (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot, his motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 11) is DENIED, and the above-captioned action will be CONSOLIDATED with Miller v. Georgia Department of Community Supervision, No. 5:23-cv-00478-TES-CHW (M.D.

“However, efficiency cannot be permitted to prevail at the expense of justice—consolidation should be considered when savings of expense and gains of efficiency can be accomplished without sacrifice of justice.” Chem One, Ltd. v. M/V Rickmers Genoa, 660 F.3d 626, 642 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130).

The Second Circuit has instructed that, when determining whether consolidation is appropriate, “efficiency cannot be permitted to prevail at the expense of justice – consolidation should be considered when savings of expense and gains of efficiency can be accomplished without sacrifice of justice.” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

See id. (“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. …

Courts consider consolidation “a valuable and important tool of judicial administration,” and often invoke consolidation to “eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion.” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

Comm. Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121 , 130 (2d Cir. 1999) (“A district court can consolidate related cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte.”)). 11 00113-HL-TQL (M.D.

However, “efficiency cannot be permitted to prevail at the expense of justice . . . .” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130.

Courts consider consolidation “‘a valuable and important tool of judicial administration,” and often invoke consolidation to “eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion.” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

Comm. Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121 , 130 (2d Cir. 1999) (“A district court can consolidate related cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte.”)). factual and legal conclusions to which no objection was timely made.

That is, “consolidation should be considered when savings of expense and gains of efficiency can be accomplished without sacrifice of justice.” Id. (quoting Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

That is, “consolidation should be considered when savings of expense and gains of efficiency can be accomplished without sacrifice of justice.” Id. (quoting Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130.

“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130.

P. 42(a); see also Devlin v. Transportation Communications International Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999) (“The Rule should be prudently employed as a valuable and important tool of judicial administration, invoked to expedite trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

“In assessing whether consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity and judicial economy.” Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130.

However, under the applicable law, efficiency cannot be permitted to prevail at the expense of justice — consolidation should be consid ered when savings of expense and gains of efficiency can be accomplished without sacrifice of justice.’’ Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130 (emphasis in original) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Whether to consolidate actions under Rule 42(a) is vested in the court’s discretion, Von Maur, 237 F.R.D. at 197 , and the district court can consolidate actions sua sponte, Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130.