Order Denying Motion to Consolidate; Order to Show Cause Why this Case Should Not Be Dismissed as Duplicative.

[ECF No. 13]

JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff Joni M. Costello moves for consolidation of her earlier-filed case, 2:17-cv-2490-KJD-GWF, into this second-filed case.1 She represents that a snafu resulted in two cases being opened instead of just one, and she asks that her fees for the earlier-filed case be refunded and that she be permitted to proceed with this second-filed case.

The rule in this district is that cases may be consolidated into the earliest-filed case, not the second-filed case,2 and Judge Dawson—the presiding judge in the first-filed of Costello's cases—already denied her request for consolidation.3 Were consolidation appropriate in this case, it would be the consolidation of this case into the one before Judge Dawson. But it does not appear that consolidation is appropriate. This is not a situation in which two separate actions involve common questions of law or fact. As plaintiff, herself, explains in her motion, this case was opened to correct "a system bug or clerical error on the part of [her] counsel," not with the intention of prosecuting two cases. The solution should have been to correct the error in the initial case, not to file a second one. And plaintiff admits that these two actions are now "duplicative," and she asks for a refund of the "duplicative complaint filing fees."4

It thus appears that the proper course of action is to dismiss this second-filed case as duplicative. If plaintiff disagrees, she has until January 12, 2018, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: