Free Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00273-MCW

Document 38

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 07-273L No. 07-426L (Filed December 14, 2007) **************************** STEPHEN J. ROGERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * **************************** BIRD BAY EXECUTIVE GOLF COURSE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * _________________________________________________________________________ ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASE NOS. 07-273 AND 07-426 _________________________________________________________________________ On August 21, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the above-captioned action as a class action pursuant to RCFC 23. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify the abovecaptioned action as a class action on November 21, 2007.

Case 1:07-cv-00273-MCW

Document 38

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 2 of 2

On November 19, 2007, the parties in Bird Bay Executive Golf Course, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-426 (Fed. Cl. filed June 27, 2007) filed a Joint Preliminary Status Report agreeing to consolidate Bird Bay with the above-captioned action for determination of liability. The parties agree that the liability issues involved in both cases are expected to be substantially similar. Plaintiffs in Bird Bay oppose consolidating these actions in the event a consolidated motion for summary judgment on liability is delayed until after the class in the abovecaptioned action is closed. Under RCFC 42(a), the Court may order actions involving common questions of law or fact consolidated. In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, the Court must weigh the interest of judicial economy against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice that may result from consolidation. Karuk Tribe of California v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 429, 433 (1993). Here, the issue of liability in both actions concerns the same transactions or events, involves the same questions of fact and law, and Plaintiffs in both cases are represented by the same counsel. As such, the judicial economy served by consolidating these two actions for determination of liability significantly outweighs any potential for prejudice or undue delay. The fact that resolution of the motions for summary judgment on liability may be delayed until after the Rogers class is closed does not alter this result. Rather, knowing the identity of the purported class members and their property interests will likely facilitate resolution of the motions. Accordingly, Bird Bay and the above-captioned action are consolidated for both discovery as to liability and determination of liability. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to consolidate Bird Bay and the above-captioned action.

s/Mary Ellen Coster Williams MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Judge