Opinion
CIVIL 3:21-CV-1076 3:20-CV-1936
02-18-2022
KENNETH RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendant. KENNETH RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,, Defendant.
JUDGE MARIANI
Because we are recommending a case dispositive outcome in one of these cases, Civil Number 3:21-CV-1076, acting out of an abundance of caution we are addressing these issues through a Report and Recommendation. We will by a separate Report and Recommendation address the pending motions in Civil Number 3:20-CV-1936 on their merits.
MARTIN C. CARLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On February 2, 2022, these two companion cases were referred to the undersigned for pretrial management and resolution of pretrial motions. In 1 reviewing the docket in these two cases, we observed a number of matters which called for our prompt attention. Specifically, our review of the two lawsuits led us to conclude that they are essentially identical. The cases entail the same parties and factual averments, and have numerous, essentially identical legal claims. Therefore, we noted that the actions may be subject to consolidation under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that:
(a) Persons Who May Join or Be Joined. (1) Plaintiffs. Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.(2) Defendants. Persons--as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property subject to admiralty process in rem--may be joined in one action as defendants if:(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.Fed. R. Civ. P. 20.
Accordingly, we entered an order directing that on or before February 16, 2022, the plaintiff shall show cause why these two cases should not be CONSOLIDATED for all further proceedings, at Civil Number 3:20-CV-1936, and Civil Number 3:21-CV-1076 be administratively closed. (Doc. 40).
This deadline has passed without any showing by the plaintiff of good cause why these cases should not be consolidated. Further, our review of the parallel pleadings in the two cases continues to reveal that they are essential identical legally and factually. The two cases arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series 2 of transactions or occurrences. Moreover the two cases present question of law or fact common to all defendants. Therefore, it is submitted that consolidation of these two cases and administrative closure of Civil Number 3:21-CV-1076 is appropriate.
II. Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that these two cases be CONSOLIDATED for all further proceedings, at Civil Number 3:20-CV-1936. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Civil Number 3:21-CV-1076 be administratively closed and that the pending motion to dismiss filed in Civil Number 3:21-CV-1076 (Doc. 8), be terminated.
The Parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive3
further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.4