Opinion
23-cv-10789
10-26-2023
MATTHEW SANDERS and BRIANNE SANDERS, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASE
LINDA V. PARKER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) authorizes consolidation of actions that involve a common question of law or fact. Whether a case should be consolidated is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. See Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir. 1993). “The objective of consolidation is to administer the court's business with expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties.” Gamboa v. Ford Motor Co., 381 F.Supp.3d 853, 866 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (citing Advey v. Celotex Corp., 962 F.2d 1177, 1181 (6th Cir. 1992)). Courts weigh the interests of judicial economy against the potential for new delays, expense, confusion, or prejudice. See Banacki v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 276 F.R.D. 567, 571 (E.D. Mich. 2011).
The present matter and Bowles v. Sabree, Case No. 23-cv-10973, share common questions of law and fact as they both stem from alleged actions by Wayne County in retaining surplus proceeds or equity from the former owners of tax foreclosed properties, and the constitutionality of those actions under Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, 952 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. 2020). Consolidation will promote judicial economy and parties will not be prejudiced.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall CONSOLIDATE this matter with Bowles v. Sabree, Case No. 23-cv-10973.