Opinion
Cause No. 3:06-CV-187RM.
May 2, 2006
OPINIION AND ORDER
The court has scheduled a hearing on May 30 on the plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment possession. The plaintiffs moved to consolidate that hearing with trial on the merits; the defendant opposes the motion. Because federal rules of procedure, and not state law, govern the proceedings in this court (though state substantive law provides the rule of decision), the court deems a motion for prejudgment possession pursuant to IND. CODE § 32-30-3-1 et seq. to be the equivalent of an application for preliminary injunction, so the motion to consolidate is governed by FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(2).
The defendant has identified a colorable risk of prejudice to it in the event trial occurs less than 11 weeks from the case's filing, and the plaintiffs have identified no risk of prejudice to them (apart from inconvenience) if the preliminary injunction hearing and trial are not consolidated. The court will keep the case on a fast track, but the court DENIES the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate hearing [docket #7].
SO ORDERED.