Arbuckle, Guy v. Town of Sanborn, No. 3:2018cv00611 - Document 4 (W.D. Wis. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER Consolidating Cases Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 8/16/2018. Associated Cases: 3:18-cv-00611-jdp et al. (voc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Arbuckle, Guy v. Town of Sanborn Doc. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GUY ARBUCKLE, Plaintiff, v. OPINION & ORDER 18-cv-611-jdp TOWN OF SANBORN, Defendant. Plaintiff Guy Arbuckle is a member of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians Tribe and the owner of real property in the Town of Sanford in Ashland County. Arbuckle filed suit against defendant Town of Sanborn in Wisconsin court, alleging that defendant illegally assessed taxes against his property in violation of an 1854 treaty between the tribe’s predecessor and the United States government. Dkt. 1-1. Arbuckle’s suit was one of 42 separate, nearly-identical suits filed by different members of the tribe against defendant. Defendant removed Arbuckle’s suit, along with the other 41 suits, to federal court. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, the court may consolidate any actions that involve a common question of law or fact. That is clearly the case here. The resolution of all 42 cases hinges on the interpretation of the 1854 treaty. The plaintiffs in each case have filed the same complaint—the only exception being the plaintiffs’ names and the identification of the taxed properties. Defendant has filed the same answer in all 42 cases, along with 42 nearly identical notices of removal. The court sees no practical difficulties weighing against consolidation. The same counsel represents the parties in each case. Any differences between the plaintiffs, such as individual proof of tribal enrollment and the amount of tax assessed Dockets.Justia.com would be immaterial to resolution of the central question. The efficiency gained by consolidating the cases is significant. A copy of this order will be published to the dockets of the other cases. 2 ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The following cases are consolidated for all purposes: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18-cv-611 18-cv-612 18-cv-613 18-cv-614 18-cv-615 18-cv-616 18-cv-617 18-cv-618 18-cv-619 18-cv-620 18-cv-621 18-cv-622 18-cv-623 18-cv-625 18-cv-626 18-cv-627 18-cv-628 18-cv-629 18-cv-630 18-cv-631 18-cv-632 3 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18-cv-633 18-cv-634 18-cv-635 18-cv-636 18-cv-637 18-cv-638 18-cv-639 18-cv-640 18-cv-641 18-cv-642 18-cv-643 18-cv-644 18-cv-645 18-cv-646 18-cv-647 18-cv-648 18-cv-649 18-cv-650 18-cv-651 18-cv-652 18-cv-653 4 2. All future filings must be made in Case No. 18-cv-611. Entered August 16, 2018. BY THE COURT: /s/ ________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
