Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01706-PAB-MJW
02-26-2013
MEDTRONIC NAVIGATION, INC., a Delaware corporation Plaintiff, v. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, a Missouri benevolent corporation, Defendant.
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Saint Louis University's Motion to Consolidate Cases [Docket No. 35] filed by defendant Saint Louis University ("SLU"). SLU seeks an order consolidating this case with a related case, 12-cv-02445-PAB-MJW, pending before the Court. Plaintiff Medtronic Navigation, Inc. ("Medtronic") does not oppose consolidation. See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Cases [Docket No. 38] at 1.
I. DISCUSSION
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions." FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a)(2). The decision whether to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978). The purpose of Rule 42(a) is "to give the court broad discretion to decide how cases on its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched with expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties." Breaux v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 220 F.R.D. 366, 367 (D. Colo. 2004) (quoting 9 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2381 at 427 (2nd ed. 1995)). Therefore, the Court will consider both judicial economy and fairness to the parties in exercising its discretion under Rule 42(a). See Harris v. Illinois-California Express, Inc., 687 F.2d 1361, 1368 (10th Cir. 1982).
Both of the cases in question involve essentially the same facts and seek to answer the same question: whether Medtronic breached its license agreement with SLU. The additional question in this case of whether SLU breached the tolling agreement by filing suit is a permissive counterclaim that is factually related to the underlying claim. FED. R. CIV. P. 13(a)-(b). The fact that Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. is a defendant in the related case but not a plaintiff in this case is not a sufficient reason to deny consolidation, especially where both parties in this case agree consolidation is appropriate. See Docket No. 38 at 1-2. Additionally, the cases were filed within approximately one week of each other and the present case is the lowest numbered case. Therefore, because the cases involve common questions of law and fact, Medtronic Navigation, Inc. v. Saint Louis Univ, 12-cv-01706-PAB-MJW, and Saint Louis Univ. v. Medtronic Navigation, Inc., 12-cv-02445-PAB-MJW, shall be consolidated.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that defendant Saint Louis University's Motion to Consolidate Cases [Docket No. 35] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Action Nos. 12-cv-01706-PAB-MJW and 12-cv-02445-PAB-MJW shall be consolidated for all purposes. It is further
ORDERED that, as of the date of this Order, all future pleadings and other filings shall be filed in this case only and shall be captioned as shown below: Civil Action No. 12-cv-01706-PAB-MJW
(Consolidated with Civil Action No. 12-cv-02445-PAB-MJW)
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01706-PAB-MJW
MEDTRONIC NAVIGATION, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, a Missouri benevolent corporation, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02445-PAB-MJW
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, a Missouri benevolent corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
MEDTRONIC NAVIGATION, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK, INC., an Indiana Corporation, Defendants.
BY THE COURT:
________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge