OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Movant Robert H. Paquette's Motion for Consolidation of Related Actions and Appointment as Interim Lead Plaintiff and Class Counsel, ECF No. [5] ("Motion"). In the Motion, Movant seeks consolidation of this case, Rasmussen v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12501 (D.N.J.), with two other related cases pending in this district: his own case, styled as Paquette v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12578 (D.N.J.), and a third case, styled as Lindquist v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12610 (D.N.J.). Movant further requests appointment of Paquette, represented by Susana Cruz Hodge of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC in Paquette v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12578 (D.N.J.), as Interim Lead Plaintiff and appointment of the law firms Monteverde & Associates, PC and Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC as Interim Class Counsel. See ECF No. [5-1].

Plaintiff Alexander Rasmussen, represented by Jeffery W. Herrmann of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, LLC, consents to consolidation of the actions but objects to the motions to appoint interim lead plaintiff and interim class counsel. ECF No. [7]. Specifically, counsel for Plaintiff Rasmussen argues that the motions are premature and run contrary to the unexpired 60-day statutory notice period contemplated in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 within which "any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class." Id. at 5; see also 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). No other parties, including Plaintiff Wesley Lindquist represented by Donald James Enright of Levi & Korsinsky LLP, in Lindquist v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12610 (D.N.J.), have filed a response to the Motion.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, "[i]f the actions before the court involve a common question of law of fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The district court has "broad power" to consolidate such cases as may facilitate the administration of justice. A.S. ex rel. Miller v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 769 F.3d 204, 212 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Ellerman Lines, Ltd. v. Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc., 339 F.2d 673, 675 (3d Cir. 1964)). Here, Movant Paquette seeks—unopposed—the consolidation of three related shareholder cases which stem from the same proposed acquisition of Pinnacle Foods, Inc. by Conagra Brands, Inc. See ECF Nos. [1] in Paquette v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12578 (D.N.J.); Rasmussen v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12501 (D.N.J.); and Lindquist v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12610 (D.N.J.). The three cases share common questions of fact and law and consolidation would serve the administration of justice. Accordingly, Paquette v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12578 (D.N.J.), Rasmussen v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12501 (D.N.J.), and Lindquist v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12610 (D.N.J.) are CONSOLIDATED under the first-filed case, Rasmussen v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12501 (D.N.J.).

In the Motion, Movant also seeks relief, including, but not limited to, the appointment of interim lead plaintiff and interim class counsel which is inappropriately filed in this case, Case No. 2:18-cv-12501. See Local Rule 42.1. Accordingly, that relief is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To the extent Movant still seeks such relief, Movant shall refile his motion after the Clerk of Court has consolidated the above-mentioned cases.

For the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED AND ADJUGED as follows:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SO ORDERED.