Free Order on Motion to Consolidate Cases - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

A U W Case 1 :04—cv—001 48-G MS Document 89 Filed 09/01 /2005 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE: )
A ) Chapter ll
INACOM CORPORATION, et al., ) Lead Case N0. 00-02426 (PIW)
) Jointly Administered
Dwtors. )

INACOM CORPORATION, )
)
Plaintiff, ) C.A. No. 04-148 (GMS)
v. )
) .
TECH DATA CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )
v. )
. )
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, )
COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION, )
ITYCORPORATION, ) _ ·
and CUSTOM EDGE, INC. )
)
Third Party Defendants. )

INACOM CORPORATION, )
)
Plaintiff} ) C.A. No. O4-582 (GMS)
v. )
)
COMPUTER CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )
INACOM CORPORATION, )
)
» Plaintiff, ) C.A. No. 04-583 (GMS)
i v. )
)
` LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)
l Defendant. )
)

Case 1:04-cv-00148-G|\/IS Document 89 Filed O9/O1/2005 Page 2 of 4
v. )
)
COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION, )
Third·Party Defendant. )

INACOM CORPORATION, )
)
Plaintiff} )
) C.A. No. 04-593 (GMS)
v. )
)
INGRAM ENTERTAINMENT, H~IC., )
)
Defendant. )

ORDER
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2005, the defendants, Tech Data Corporation ("Tech Data"), Dell
Computer Corporation ("Dell"), Lexmark International, Inc. ("Lexmark") and Ingram Entertainment
Inc. ("Ingram") tiled a Motion for the Court to Consolidate for Trial, Pursuant to FRCP 42(a), Four
Actions Pending on the Court’s Docket (D.I. 38)*;
WHEREAS, the motion asserts that consolidation is appropriate because the actions involve
common questions of law and fact, and consolidation will result in saving the court time, as well as
saving the parties time and money;
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2005, Inacom Corp., et al. ("Inacom") tiled a Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate for Trial (D.I. 40), contending that the facts ofthe
cases do not support consolidation;
I For convenience, the court will cite to case documents using the D.I. number from the
Tech Data case, the earliest tiled action.
2 _
I

Case 1 :04-cv-00148-GMS Document 89 Filed O9/O1/2005 Page 3 of 4
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2005, Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP"), third-party defendant,
tiled a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate for Trial (D.I. 41),
contending that the preference actions should not be consolidated with the third-party claimsz;
WHEREAS, HP does not contend that it is inappropriate for the court to consolidate the
third-party claims for trial;
WHEREAS, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits the court to consolidate actions
thatnare pending before it, which "involv[e] a common question of law or fact";
WHEREAS, alter having considered the parties submissions (D.I. 38, 39, 40, 42) and
relevant law, the court concludes that Inacom’s preference actions involve common questions of law
and fact, and that consolidation, therefore, is appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the court further concludes that Tech Data and Lexmark’s third-party claims
involve common questions of law and fact, and that consolidation of the claims is appropriate;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Defendants’ Motion for the Court to Consolidate for Trial, Pursuant to FRCP
42(a), Four Actions Pending on the Court’s Docket (D.I. 38) is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part.
2. Inacom’s preference actions in the above-captioned cases shall be consolidated for
trial.
2 HP subsequently filed a Motion for a Separate Trial of the Third-Party Claims GDI. 47)
on July 6, 2005, which the court granted on August 29, 2005. (See D.I. 83.) Thus, the
defendants’ motion is denied as moot with respect to consolidation of the third-party claims with
the preference claims.
3

Case 1:04-cv-00148-G|\/IS Document 89 Filed O9/O1/2005 Page 4 of 4
3. Tech Data and Lexmark’s third-party claims against HP shall be consolidated for a
separate trial from the preference action trial.
Dated: September [ , 2005
S ATES DIS TJUDGE
F I L E D
u. .
¤.s$R%$B‘é%EE2#2§E
4

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 89

Filed 09/01/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 89

Filed 09/01/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 89

Filed 09/01/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 89

Filed 09/01/2005

Page 4 of 4