Filed: Oct. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2017
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Actions (ECF No. 27), filed on September 28, 2017. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion and the time for opposition has now expired. Defendant requests that the Court consolidate this action with a separate action that is pending before the Eighth Judicial District Court, Patti & Sgro, P.C., et al. v. Lousky, A-16-748245-C. Defendant represents that
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Actions (ECF No. 27), filed on September 28, 2017. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion and the time for opposition has now expired. Defendant requests that the Court consolidate this action with a separate action that is pending before the Eighth Judicial District Court, Patti & Sgro, P.C., et al. v. Lousky, A-16-748245-C. Defendant represents that t..
More
ORDER
GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Actions (ECF No. 27), filed on September 28, 2017. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion and the time for opposition has now expired.
Defendant requests that the Court consolidate this action with a separate action that is pending before the Eighth Judicial District Court, Patti & Sgro, P.C., et al. v. Lousky, A-16-748245-C. Defendant represents that these actions stem from the same failed real estate transaction between the parties. Defendant asserts that consolidation would avoid duplication of discovery and save judicial time and resources.
Defendant's request suffers from one fatal flaw. This Court does not have jurisdiction over the action pending before the Eighth Judicial District Court. In order for these cases to be subject to a motion for consolidation, Defendant must properly remove the state court action to this federal district. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Actions (ECF No. 27) is denied.
