Siemens Industry Inc v. East Chicago Indiana City of - Document 22
ORDER: Court GRANTS 20 Motion to Consolidate Cases and ORDERS consolidation of cause numbers 2:13-CV-273-JTM-PRC and 2:13-CV-334-RLM-APR. All future filings to be made in 2:13-CV-273-JTM-PRC ONLY. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 10/21/2013. (tc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., successor
through merger to Siemens Water Technologies
THE CITY OF EAST CHICAGO, INDIANA,
Case No. 2:13-CV-273-JTM-PRC
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Consolidate [DE 20], filed by Defendant the
City of East Chicago (the “City”) on October 3, 2013. Defendant requests that this matter be
consolidated with The City of East Chicago v. Siemens Water Technologies Corporation, et al.,
cause number 2:13-CV-334-RLM-APR. On October 17, 2013, Plaintiff Siemens Industry, Inc.
(“Siemens”) filed a response to the motion, indicating that it has no objection to the Motion to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that “[i]f actions before the court involve a
common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2).
Consolidation is appropriate for “cases that share the same questions of law or fact and where
consolidation would not result in prejudice to any party.” Back v. Bayh, 933 F. Supp. 738, 748 (N.D.
Ind. 1996) (citing Fleishman v. Prudential-Bache Sec., 103 F.R.D. 623, 624 (E.D. Wis. 1984)).
Courts “consider such factors as judicial economy, avoiding delay, and avoiding inconsistent or
conflicting results” as well as “as the possibility of juror confusion or administrative difficulties.”
Habitat Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. Kimbell, 250 F.R.D. 390, 394 (E.D. Wis. 2008).
On August 7, 2013, the City filed in the Lake County, Indiana, Superior Court a lawsuit
against Siemens, Siemens Industry, Inc., Siemens Water Technologies, Corp., Federal Insurance
Company, and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. The same date, Siemens filed the instant
lawsuit against the City based on the same underlying dispute–namely, a breach of contract case
relating to a $50 million non-functioning water treatment plant in East Chicago, Indiana.
The causes of action concern the same underlying dispute and involve common questions
of law and fact. Consolidation will avoid the possibility of inconsistent outcomes. Notably, in the
instant case, the City filed a Motion to Abstain on August 29, 2013, arguing that this case should
be stayed pending resolution of the state case. On September 20, 2013, Siemens filed a Notice of
Removal and removed the state case to this Court, identifying the instant cause of action as a related
case on the civil cover sheet of the removed case; the case was assigned cause number 2:13-CV-334.
Subsequently, the City filed a Motion to Remand on October 3, 2013 in 2:13-CV-334. Judicial
efficiency will be served by the resolution of the motion to remand and the motion to abstain by the
Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to
Consolidate [DE 20] and ORDERS consolidation of cause numbers 2:13-CV-273-JTM-PRC and
All future filings shall be made in 2:13-CV-273-JTM-PRC only.
SO ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2013.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
All counsel of record