Opinion
Civil Action 22-cv-00930-RM-SKC
10-14-2022
EagleBank, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. YAJIA HU SCHWARTZ, MARK ALAN SCHWARTZ, Defendants and Counterclaimants, and TAX LIEN LAW GROUP, LLC, Counterclaimant, and YAJIA HU SCHWARTZ, Cross-Plaintiff, v. JAMES ADAMS, CHRISTINA ADAMS, MICHAEL K. HAGEMANN, and M.K. HAGEMANN, P.C., Cross-Defendants, and JAMES ADAMS, and CHRISTINA ADAMS, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. YAJIA HU SCHWARTZ, MARK ALAN SCHWARTZ, EAGLEBANK, and TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, LLC, Third-Party Defendants.
ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION
RAYMOND P. MOORE, United States District Judge
Before the Court is an Unopposed Motion to Consolidate (ECF No. 48), seeking to consolidate this case with EagleBank v. Schwartz, No. 22-cv-01762-RM-GPG. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a), the Court finds these cases involve common claims, parties, and questions of law and fact. The Court further finds that consolidation of these two actions will promote judicial efficiency and avoid unnecessary costs and delays. See Ellerman Lines, Ltd. v. Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc., 339 F.2d 673, 675 (3d Cir. 1964) (stating that Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a) “confers upon a district court broad power, whether at the request of a party or upon its own initiative, to consolidate causes for trial as may facilitate the administration of justice”).
Although the Court's usual practice is for consolidated cases to adopt the lower case number, the underlying state case that was removed to case number 22-cv-01762-RM-GPG was filed earliest, and therefore the Court will consolidate this case into that one.
Further, although various claims in this case implicate various trusts, trusts themselves are not legal entities with the capacity to sue or be sued. See Colo. Springs Cablevision, Inc. v. Lively, 579 F.Supp. 252, 254 (D. Colo. 1984); Carpenters & Millwrights Health Benefit Tr. Fund v. Domestic Insulation Co., 387 F.Supp. 144, 147 (D. Colo. 1975). Accordingly, the Court has amended the caption to reflect that the trustees are the real parties in interest. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a)(1)(E). Moreover, in the interest of taming the caption, and because “it is unnecessary to plead the capacity in which a party is participating in an action,” Colo. Springs Cablevision, Inc., 579 F.Supp. at 255, the capacities in which the individual parties are suing or being sued have been omitted.
It is therefore ORDERED that case number 22-cv-00930-RM-GPG and case number 22-cv-01762-RM-GPG are hereby CONSOLIDATED for all purposes. Future filings in either of these actions shall use the caption above and be docketed under case number 22-cv-01762-RM-GPG.
The pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, subject to re-filing in light of the consolidation.
This Order shall also be filed in case number 22-cv-01762-RM-SKC.