Marathon Search Partners of Burlington, Inc. v. Axelrod, 16 Civ. 7452 (RWS). (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20161025i19
Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 21, 2016
Summary: OPINION ROBERT W. SWEET , District Judge . Plaintiff has moved to consolidate this action with a related action titled, Eric Axelrod v. Howard Klein, et al., No. 16 Civ. 7183 (AJC). At the time Plaintiff filed the motion to consolidate, the related action was pending in the Southern District before the Honorable Andrew J. Carter. However, on October 14, 2016, Judge Carter remanded the first-filed action to Vermont state court. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Court only ha
Summary: OPINION ROBERT W. SWEET , District Judge . Plaintiff has moved to consolidate this action with a related action titled, Eric Axelrod v. Howard Klein, et al., No. 16 Civ. 7183 (AJC). At the time Plaintiff filed the motion to consolidate, the related action was pending in the Southern District before the Honorable Andrew J. Carter. However, on October 14, 2016, Judge Carter remanded the first-filed action to Vermont state court. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Court only has..
More
OPINION
ROBERT W. SWEET, District Judge.
Plaintiff has moved to consolidate this action with a related action titled, Eric Axelrod v. Howard Klein, et al., No. 16 Civ. 7183 (AJC). At the time Plaintiff filed the motion to consolidate, the related action was pending in the Southern District before the Honorable Andrew J. Carter. However, on October 14, 2016, Judge Carter remanded the first-filed action to Vermont state court. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Court only has the power to consolidate actions before the same federal district court. Facen v. Royal Rotterdam Lloyd SS Co., 12 F.R.D. 443 (S.D.N.Y. 1952). The motion to consol i date is denied because the related action is now pending in Vermont state court.
Defendants request reasonable attorneys' fees for their efforts to defend their client against this meritless motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for "multipl[ying] the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously." 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Judge Carter has awarded fees for removing the related case serving the purpose of awarding fees to penalize a party for filing a motion without merit and the motion for a fee award is denied.
It is so ordered.
Source: Leagle
