Opinion
Civil Action Nos. 04-2500-CM, 04-2501-CM, 04-2502-CM.
April 25, 2005.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on plaintiffs Harold and Joyce Jackson's Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 22), plaintiffs Larry and Janice Deuschle's Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 21), and plaintiffs Barbara and George Painter's Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 22). Each of the aforementioned plaintiffs moves the court to consolidate his or her case with each other's.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a) provides for a court to consolidate "any or all the matters in issue in the actions," if the actions involve a "common question of law or fact." The decision whether to consolidate such actions is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978). The primary consideration for the court is whether consolidating the cases promotes judicial efficiency without unduly prejudicing a party. Johnson v. The Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kan., 1999 WL 1096038, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 16, 1999); see also Arnold v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 1982) ("The critical question for the district court in the final analysis was whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion were overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives.").
Defendants jointly oppose the aforementioned plaintiffs' motions to consolidate. Defendants first assert that there are no common issues of fact in any of the cases. In particular, defendants assert that defendant Stephen D. Godfrey dealt with each plaintiff individually, and that the factual details of each case will be specific to that respective plaintiff. In support of consolidation, plaintiffs allege that common facts predominate over the individual issues of fact between these cases. For example, each plaintiff claims that defendants made cookie-cutter Investment Portfolio Designs for all of their retirement clients and standard "stay the course" recommendations to their clients, in complete disregard of the clients' needs. Moreover, defendants' representations and recommendations to plaintiffs and their other clients were essentially standardized.
Rule 42(a) does not require identical factual scenarios, only common issues of fact. The court concludes that sufficient common issues of facts exist among the plaintiffs to warrant consolidation of their cases.
Defendants next assert that there are no common issues of law in the cases. However, plaintiffs are all bringing suit under nearly identical theories of recovery. The court therefore concludes that common issues of law exist among the cases to warrant consolidation.
Considering that defendants utilized the standard Investment Portfolio Design tool with the Jacksons, the Deuschles, and the Painters, and offered the same advice when problems developed in the accounts, and that this conduct is the basis for plaintiffs' claims against the defendants, the court concludes that judicial resources would be used more efficiently and consistent rulings would be achieved by the consolidation of these cases.
At this juncture in the litigation, each case currently has three pending, identical motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs in each case had filed motions for extensions of time in which to respond based upon their (then) pending motions to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs in each case have moved to withdraw their request for leave to amend the compliant. As such, defendants' motions to dismiss are ripe for further briefing.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs Harold and Joyce Jackson's Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 22), plaintiffs Larry and Janice Deuschle's Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 21), and plaintiffs Barbara and George Painter's Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 22) are granted. The court orders that Larry Deuschle, et al. v. John Hancock Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-2501-CM, and Barbara Painter, et al. v. John Hancock Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-2502-CM, are consolidated into Harold Jackson, et al. v. John Hancock Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-2500-CM. The court further orders that all filings in Case No. 04-2501-CM and Case No. 04-2502-CM shall be filed in Case No. 04-2500-CM.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' respective motions for extension of time (Doc. 28 in Case No. 04-2500), (Doc. 26 in former Case No. 04-2501), and (Doc. 26 in former Case No. 04-2502) are granted to the extent that plaintiffs shall have twenty days in which to respond to defendants' pending motions to dismiss. In other words, plaintiffs shall respond to defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 7, 9, 12) within twenty days, and defendants shall have twenty days thereafter in which to reply.