If you do decide that consolidation is appropriate for your case, then you must determine if you have grounds to consolidate. Any of the following grounds will support consolidation: 1 the cases involve the same or substantially the same core of operative facts and questions of law; 2 consolidation of the actions avoids unnecessary costs, delays, or the possibility of inconsistent verdicts, Travelers Exp. Acosta, So. Powell, So.
If you have grounds to consolidate, before cases may be consolidated for trial, they should be set before the same judge. Pages v. Dominguez, So. This type of transfer is done by local or administrative rule and is different from transfers under Fla. If the cases are not before the same judge, move to transfer the latest filed case to the judge handing the case with the oldest case number.
In your motion to consolidate, state why the case should be sent to another judge. Allege the following grounds to support a motion to transfer: 1 the case is substantially the same as the case pending before another judge; and 2 the case pending before the other judge has an older case number. If you have grounds to consolidate and all the cases to be consolidated are before the same judge, move to consolidate the cases under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.
Before serving or filing the motion to consolidate, ask all the attorneys involved in the separate cases to agree to consolidate. If all counsel agree to consolidation, have them sign a stipulation.
Next, prepare a proposed agreed order granting the motion to consolidate and submit the motion, stipulation, and agreed order to the court. If all counsel do not agree to consolidate, submit the motion and a memorandum of law showing why the court should consolidate the cases.
Set the matter for hearing and provide the court with case law that supports consolidation in your case. Attach any supporting documents to the memorandum, including affidavits that establish good reasons for consolidation. Be sure to review the local rules or customs for specific rules and guidelines regarding motion practice. The other actions abate upon your filing of the order of consolidation in each court file affected.
Any new pleadings, motions, or other documents in the surviving action will have the caption of the surviving action only and this caption should reflect the case numbers of the consolidated cases. This cost saving technique is best used when liability is almost certain and the defendant cannot or will not admit liability. The test case is also tried on damages so that it can be appealed if necessary.
The result may then serve as a template for resolution of the remaining cases by settlement. If the remaining cases do not settle, they will be tried on damages, but not liability, because the parties will have stipulated to be bound by the liability result.
A party may use consolidation as a delaying tactic. Courts may be reluctant to consolidate if it will interfere with the timing of events that occur before trial. See Maharaj, So.
Consolidated cases may not be tried until all cases are ready for trial. Although consolidation with a case that is not yet ready for trial may delay a case that is ready for trial, that alone is insufficient reason to deny consolidation where all other factors favor joint trial. Despite the potential for delay, consolidation can solve or avoid problems such as inefficient management of multiple plaintiff cases arising out of the same facts or occurrences and inconsistent verdicts.
Tommie v. Conversely, consolidation can also cause problems, such as delay, Maharaj, So. Defendants are more likely to move to consolidate cases because consolidation can reduce damages. This is because juries often award less money in cases with one defendant and multiple plaintiffs because the jury perceives that the defendant is paying out a lot of money.
Consolidation can also save the defendant attorney fees when one attorney represents the defendant in several different but related cases. On the other hand, Plaintiffs are often gamblers and are less likely to move to consolidate for the aforementioned reasons.
Writing for the Court, Justice Roberts made clear, however, that such consolidation does not change the independent nature of the underlying claims, and that consolidated cases retain their separate and distinct identities. The cases at issue arose from a family dispute. Ethlyn Hall had a falling out with her son, Samuel, who had been acting as her legal adviser, real estate manager, and caretaker.
Thereafter, Ethlyn transferred her property into a trust and designated her daughter, Elsa, as the successor to that trust. She also filed suit against Samuel for mismanagement of her legal affairs. Samuel later filed suit against his sister in her individual capacity. This effectively reopened the judgment. When Elsa attempted to appeal that decision, Samuel moved to dismiss the appeal.
His argument was that because the claims had been consolidated, and the individual claims remained unresolved pending the new trial, the fiduciary case was not final and appealable yet. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed and dismissed the appeal.
Elsa appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, asking it to extend a decision , regarding jurisdiction in multidistrict cases, to single district consolidated cases, such that the entry of a final judgment in only one case makes that case immediately appealable despite pending claims in another related case. The Court noted that, if the actions had not been consolidated, there would have been no question that Elsa had the right to immediately appeal the judgment in the fiduciary case.
0コメント