Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Nos. 06-1912(JP), 06-1913(JP).

Attorney(S)

Alicia M. Arana-Rivera, Esq., Charlotten Arana PSC, Juan M. Frontera-Suau, Esq., San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff. Fernán Quiterio Rodríguez-Rivera, Esq., Goldman, Antonetti Córdova, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.

Judges

Jaime Pieras

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Case Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This order, issued January 25, 2007 by Senior District Judge Pieras of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, consolidates civil actions numbered 06-1912(JP) and 06-1913(JP). Both cases were filed by former employees of Congar International Corporation, each claiming they were terminated after the defendant allegedly provided false information to the Puerto Rico Police Department and thereby instigated a criminal case against them. The Court consolidated the actions to serve judicial economy and reduce litigation costs; it directed that all future filings be made under case number 06-1912(JP).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether consolidation of cases 06-1912(JP) and 06-1913(JP) is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) based on common questions of law or fact.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Gen. Contracting Trading Co., LLC v. Interpole, Inc., 899 F.2d 109, 113	Consolidation is a procedural device that does not alter the character of separate suits.	The Court relied on this principle in explaining that consolidation does not change the separate nature of the suits being joined.
Arroyo v. Chardon, 90 F.R.D. 603, 605 (D.Puerto Rico 1981)	Text of Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a) describing consolidation when actions involve common questions of law or fact and permitting orders to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.	The Court quoted this authority for the purposes and scope of Rule 42(a) in evaluating consolidation.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a)	Grants courts broad discretion to consolidate cases where there are common questions of law or fact.	The Court applied Rule 42(a) as the governing standard and concluded the cases meet its requirement of common issues of law or fact.
9 Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2383 (1995)	Advises courts to weigh the saving of time and effort from consolidation against any inconvenience, delay, or expense it may cause.	The Court referenced this guidance in explaining the balancing test and found consolidation appropriate given expected savings and efficiency.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court explained that consolidation is a procedural device that does not change the separate character of suits and that Rule 42(a) permits consolidation where common questions of law or fact exist. It identified the purposes of consolidation—to avoid overlapping trials, duplicative proof, excess cost, waste of court time, and burden on a new judge—and noted the requirement to balance efficiencies against possible inconvenience or prejudice. The Court found common issues of fact because both plaintiffs, former employees of the defendant, claim termination after the defendant allegedly provided false information to the Puerto Rico Police Department; consolidation would expedite discovery and reduce costs. The Court also retained the option to sever the cases at trial if necessary to avoid confusion of the issues.

Holding and Implications

CONSOLIDATED.

The Court ordered that cases 06-1912(JP) and 06-1913(JP) be consolidated. From the date of the order, all documents must be filed under case number 06-1912(JP). The consolidation is procedural and does not alter the separate character of the suits; the Court may sever the cases at trial if it deems severance appropriate to avoid confusion.

Show full summary ...

Edwin VAZQUEZ RIVERA, Plaintiff v. CONGAR INTERNATIONAL CORP., Defendant. Juan Miranda Ramos, Plaintiff

ORDER

PIERAS, Senior District Judge

In order to best serve judicial economy and save litigation costs, cases 06-1912(JP) and 06-1913(JP) will be consolidated.

Consolidation is a procedural device that does not alter the character of separate suits. Gen. Contracting Trading Co., LLC v. Interpole, Inc., 899 F.2d 109, 113 (1st Cir. 1990). Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants courts broad discretion to consolidate cases where there are common questions of law or fact. Arroyo v. Chardon, 90 F.R.D. 603, 605 (D.Puerto Rico 1981):

[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). The purpose of consolidation is to avoid: (1) overlapping trials containing duplicative proof; (2) excess cost incurred by all parties and the government; (3) the waste of valuable court time in the trial of repetitive claims; and (4) the burden placed on a new judge in gaining familiarity with the cases. Id. at 60. The Court must weigh the saving of time and effort that consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause. See 9 Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2383 (1995).

Consolidation of 06-1912(JP) and 06-1913(JP) is proper because the cases meet the Rule 42(a) requirement of common issues of law or fact, and consolidation would reduce cost to the parties, and serve judicial economy. The cases were filed by two former employees of the defendant company Congar International Corporation. Both plaintiffs claim they were terminated from employment when the defendant instigated a criminal case against them by allegedly providing false information to the Puerto Rico Police Department. Given the common issues of fact, consolidation will expedite discovery. The Court may sever these cases at the trial stage if it deems severance proper to avoid confusion of the issues.

The Court ORDERS that the cases 06-1912(JP) and 06-1913(JP) be consolidated. From this date forward, all documents filed in this action must be filed under case numbered 06-1912(JP).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RIVERA v. CONGAR INTERNATIONAL CORP