Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Misty N. Heil v. Belle Starr Saloon & Casino

March 11, 2013

MISTY N. HEIL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
BELLE STARR SALOON & CASINO, INC., AND ANGIE'S INC.; DEFENDANTS,
AND
THOMAS W. SHERWOOD, SR., D/B/A SHERWOOD INVESTMENT & TRUST COMPANY, AND SHERWOOD FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, DEFENDANTS/THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JASON ORELUP, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT. CHELSEA LINTON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ANGIE'S INC. AND BELLE STARR SALOON & CASINO, INC.; DEFENDANTS, AND THOMAS W. SHERWOOD SR., D/B/A SHERWOOD INVESTMENT & TRUST COMPANY, AND SHERWOOD FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, DEFENDANTS/CROSS CLAIM PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JASON ORELUP, DEFENDANT/CROSS CLAIM DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeffrey L. VIKEN Chief Judge

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CASES AND OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS

INTRODUCTION

On April 24,2012, plaintiff Chelsea Linton moved, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2), to consolidate Linton v. Angie's Inc., et al, CIV. 09-5099, with Heil v. Belle Starr Saloon & Casino, Inc., et al., CIV. No. 09-5074. (CIV. 09-5099, Docket 63). Plaintiff Misty Heil did not oppose the consolidation. Id. Thomas W. Sherwood, Sr., d/b/a Sherwood Investment & Trust Company ("SITC") was the only defendant who opposed the motion.

Id. at Docket 73. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 the court referred plaintiff Linton's motion to Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy. Id. at Docket 75. On June 26, 2012, Magistrate Judge Duffy issued an order granting the motion to consolidate. Id. at Docket 78; see also Civ. 09-5074, Docket 120. The order required all further filings be made in Heil, as the earlier and lead case. Id. at p. 17. SITC filed objections to the magistrate judge's order. (09-5074, Docket 130).*fn1 Plaintiff Linton filed a response to SITC's objections. Id. at Docket 132.*fn2

For the reasons stated below, the court finds Magistrate Judge Duffy's order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law*fn3 and defendant's objections and request for reconsideration (Civ. 09-5074, Docket 130)*fn4 are denied.

DISCUSSION

SITC's objections to the magistrate judge's order granting Ms. Linton's ("plaintiff" for the remainder of this order) motion to consolidate are summarized as:

1. Plaintiff's motion to consolidate is untimely;

2. The overlap of witnesses is insufficient to warrant consolidation;

3. The damages witnesses and evidence are different;

4. Each case will require separate facts to establish liability;

5. The magistrate judge relied on non-precedential authority; and

6. Consolidation will be prejudicial to all defendants. Id. Each objection will be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.