Opinion
CV-20-00047-PHX-DWL
07-21-2022
Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. James D. Noland, Jr., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DOMINIC W. LANZA, DISTRICT JUDGE
Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants the Court authority to consolidate actions before the Court if they “involve a common question of fact.” “District courts enjoy substantial discretion in deciding whether and to what extent to consolidate cases,” Hall v. Hall, 138 S.Ct. 1118, 1131 (2018), and “may consolidate cases sua sponte.” In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987). See also 9A Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2382 (2022) (“The consent of the parties is not required.”).
“[C]onsolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration, but does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another.” Hall, 138 S.Ct. at 1127. After consolidation, the suits “remain as independent as before.” Id. Consolidation allows the Court “merely to try cases together,” but “separate verdicts and judgments or separate decrees” remain necessary. Id. at 1128.
FTC v. Netforce Seminars, et al, 2:00-cv-02260-DWL, has been proceeding in tandem with the above-captioned action for some time. The Court finds that they involve a common question of fact and intends to exercise its discretion to consolidate the actions and try them together. This will eliminate the need for the parties to file duplicate copies of each filing on two separate dockets. See, e.g., 2:20-cv-00047-DWL Doc. 512, No. 2:00-cv-02260-DWL Doc. 139 (identical filings regarding the parties' proposed trial dates). The parties already anticipate a joint trial.
Although the Court has the discretion to consolidate without the parties' consent, the Court prefers to invite response from the parties before taking this action.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall, within one week of this order, notify the Court as to whether they object to consolidation.