GEORGE Z. SINGAL, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Motion to Continue Trial, to Correct Order and to Consolidate Cases by Peter Tinkham and Juliet Alexander (ECF No. 279 in Docket No. 1:12-cv-229-GZS & ECF No. 34 in Docket No. 2:15-cv-310-GZS). Laura Perry filed a Response in opposition to the Motion (ECF No. 288 in Docket No. 1:12-cv-229-GZS) and Tinkham and Alexander filed their Reply (ECF Nos. 292 & 293 in Docket No. 1:12-cv-229-GZS & ECF Nos. 36 & 37 in Docket No. 2:15-cv-310-GZS).
Having considered the parties' briefing and the long procedural history underlying this dispute, the Court concludes that consolidation of Docket No. 1:12-cv-229-GZS ("the 2012 case") and Docket No. 2:15-cv-310-GZS ("the 2015 case") is appropriate and reflects the most efficient use of the resources of the Court and the parties. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Court readily finds that the 2012 case and the 2015 case involve common questions of law and fact. There are three common parties to both actions: Laura Perry, Peter Tinkham and Juliet Alexander. Both cases have the same factual nucleus: a family dispute regarding ownership of a cottage located in Weld, Maine. Only two claims remain in the 2012 case: (1) Laura Perry's claim for breach of promissory note and (2) Laura Perry's claim for breach of contract. Both claims seek to recover monies allegedly owed in connection with the purchase of the Weld Cottage by Alexander and Tinkham. These same claims are stated as part of the sevencount Amended Complaint in the 2015 case (ECF No. 13-5 in Docket No. 2:15-cv-310-GZS). In its May 5, 2015 Order, this Court indicated that it believed the proper procedural course for these two claims was that they should be pursued in connection with the related state foreclosure case, which is now before this Court as the 2015 case. (
The Court acknowledges that Laura Perry objects to consolidation on the grounds that she would be prejudiced by any further delay in a trial of her two breach claims, noting that consolidation would "extend the trial date beyond her statistical life expectancy." (Laura Perry Response (ECF No. 288) at 3.) However, the Court notes that it was Laura Perry who agreed to stay the 2012 case from June 9, 2015 through May 26, 2016 in favor of allowing a trial on the state foreclosure case to proceed first. Additionally, the parties have sought delay of this case throughout the summer while pursuing judicially supervised settlement negotiations. Given these delays, the 2012 case would be placed on this Court's November 2016 trial list.
To the extent that the pending motion seeks correction of the Court's Order setting the 2012 case for a bench, rather than jury, trial, the Motion is MOOT as a result of the Court's decision to consolidate the 2012 case into the 2015 case. In the Court's view, the issue of whether the parties have waived the right to a jury trial on one or more claims to be tried in the 2015 case is best resolved by the parties filing a renewed motion in the consolidated 2015 case.
Therefore, the Court now GRANTS IN PART the Motions to the extent they seek to consolidate these two pending cases. The Court hereby ORDERS that the Clerk terminate the 2012 case and that Laura Perry may and shall pursue all claims remaining in the 2012 case as part of her claims in the 2015 case. To the extent the Motions seek additional relief, the Court declares those requests MOOT but notes that this ruling is without prejudice to any party filing an appropriate motion in the 2015 case regarding the right to a jury trial on any claim asserted in that case.
SO ORDERED.