Opinion
Case No. CIV-98-340-E-BLW
October 25, 2000
ORDER
Currently pending before the Court are the following motions: motion of Defendants Detsel and Earlene Parkinson for an order allowing them to file counterclaims, third-party claims, cross-claims in this matter, and to consolidate this matter with Case No. CV-00-211-S-EJL (Docket No. 57); and Plaintiff United States' motion for an extension of time within which to file dispositive motions (Docket No. 60). Having reviewed the motions, responses and the record in this matter, the Court enters the following order.
I. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND MOTION TO FILE COUNTERCLAIMS, THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS, AND CROSSCLAIMS
During the pendency of this action, Defendants Detsel and Earlene Parkinson filed a separate complaint against this Court, Judge Winmill, Judge Winmill's law clerk, the United States, the United States' attorneys (Plaintiff's attorneys herein), the IRS, and various IRS employees, alleging that they are involved in various conspiracies to deprive Defendants (herein)/Plaintiffs (therein) of their property and their constitutional rights. See Case No. CV00-211-S-EJL. That case was filed on April 25, 2000, and is assigned to Judge Edward J. Lodge. Currently pending before Judge Lodge in that action are Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. In other words, that matter is still at the pleadings stage. If Defendants' motions are not granted, they will be required to file answers. The Parkinsons now seek to consolidate Case No. CV00-211-S-EJL with this action.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 in 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." Rule 42(a) sets forth no situations in which consolidation must be granted. Rather, "[t]he district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district." Investors Research Co. v. United States Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989).
One of the purposes of Rule 42 consolidation is to make litigation of related matters more convenient for the parties and the Court. Pending before the Court in this action is a fairly simple issue: the United States seeks to reduce federal tax assessments against the Parkinsons to judgment so that the taxes can be collected. In contrast, in Case No. CV00-211-S-EJL, Plaintiffs assert that there are "multi-tiered racketeering enterprises" and other complex conspiracies among courts, attorneys and governmental agencies. Common questions of law or fact between the cases are few. While both may contain issues related to the collection of taxes by the IRS, Case No. CV00-211-S-EJL concerns whether such collection is the product of a broad conspiracy by the IRS, the United States Attorney, and the federal courts to deprive Plaintiffs of their property and rights. That case also concerns issues unrelated to this matter, such as the allegation that this Court and Judge Winmill have given certain classes of individuals preferential treatment in the court system over the past ten years. Contrarily, in this case, the issue is very narrowly confined to particular tax assessments against the Parkinsons. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that consolidating Case No. CV00-211-S-EJL would unnecessarily complicate adjudication of this relatively straight forward action.
A second purpose of Rule 42(a) consolidation is to avoid delay. However, this case would be unnecessarily delayed by consolidation. While Case No. CV00-211-S-EJL is still at the pleadings stage, this matter has already been set for trial. To consolidate the cases would mean that this matter would be significantly delayed, and that the current trial date would not be met. This case has already been pending for over two years. The Court finds that the purpose of Rule 42 to avoid delay would not be met by consolidating these matters.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds, and therefore concludes, that consolidation of these matters would be inappropriate and declines to exercise its discretion in favor of consolidation. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is denied.
By this same motion, Defendants also seek to add "counterclaims, third-party claims, and cross-claims." It appears that Defendants wish to assert the claims in the complaint in Case No. CV00-211-S-EJL as counterclaims or third-party claims in this action. Defendants have not asserted that the claims in Case No. CV00-211-S-EJL are compulsory in this action under Rule 13(a). Neither have they asserted that the claims were omitted and should be allowed on the grounds set forth in Rule 13(f). On the contrary, Defendants chose to bring these claims in a separate action, which is now in litigation. A party is not entitled to litigate the same claims in two different actions. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to assert counterclaims, third-party claims, and crossclaims is denied.
Defendants state that their motion is brought pursuant to "Rules 13, 14 and 15 and all subparts or subsections thereof." However, they fail to make any argument as to why any of these Rules, subparts or subsections apply to the facts of this case.
II.
MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
Plaintiff has tiled a motion to enlarge the time within which to file dispositive motions in this matter. Plaintiff asserts that it intends to file dispositive motions in this matter, but that counsel has had difficulty contacting its primary witness to prepare a declaration in support of the dispositive motion, which is a legitimate reason for extending the time periods. In addition, Plaintiff also asserts that it is in the process of evaluating a settlement offer from Donalyn and Stephen J. Parkinson in this matter.
The judicial system favors allowing parties to be able to file dispositive motions to dispose of cases which do not have a sufficient legal basis to proceed to trial. Disposing of such cases prior to trial helps clear judicial calendars for meritorious cases to be heard. Plaintiff seeks an additional 30 days, until November 9, 2000, in which to file a dispositive motion. The Court finds that a 30-day time extension will not interfere with the trial schedule in this matter. The Court also finds that extending the time will not prejudice Defendants. The 30-day time extension shall be granted as to all parties who wish to file dispositive motions.
By these statements, the Court is not implying that either party's position in this particular matter is or is not meritorious.
III. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Detsel Parkinson and Earlene Parkinson's motion for an order allowing them to file counterclaims, third-party claims, cross-claims in this matter, and to consolidate this matter with Case No. CV-00-211-S-EJL (Docket No. 57) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff United States' motion for an extension of time within which to file dispositive motions (Docket No. 60) is GRANTED. All parties shall file dispositive motions on or before November 9, 2000.
SO ORDERED this 25th day of October, 2000.