United States District Court, D. Maryland
PATRICK J. HUGHES Plaintiff,
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants. and PATRICK J. HUGHES Plaintiff,
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.
RICHARD D. BENNETT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pending in these related contract actions filed by pro
se plaintiff Patrick J. Hughes (“Hughes” or
“Plaintiff”) against defendants J.P. Morgan Chase
Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and DOES I through X
(collectively “Defendants”) are several motions,
including plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Cases
(RDB-16-806, ECF No. 17). Defendants have filed a Limited
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
Consolidate. (RDB-16-806, ECF No. 20.) The parties'
submissions have been reviewed, and no hearing is necessary.
See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons
that follow, Civil Action No. RDB-16-806 and Civil Action No.
RDB-16-2311 shall be consolidated, and this case shall
proceed as set forth below.
Motion to Consolidate
Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a), actions before the court may be
consolidated when they “involve a common question of
law or fact.” “District courts have broad
discretion under F[ed]. R. Civ. P. 42(a) to consolidate
causes pending in the same district.” A/S J. Ludwig
Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Const. Co., 559 F.2d 928,
933 (4th Cir. 1977). Here, Civil Action No. RDB-16-806 and
Civil Action No. RDB-16-2311 involve the same plaintiff, at
least one common defendant, and arise from the same
underlying transaction: the settlement agreement between
plaintiff and defendant Chase. See RDB-16-806, ECF
No. 1, RDB-16-2311, ECF No. 2. As these cases involve common
questions of law and fact, they will be
consolidated. Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion to
Consolidate (RDB-16-806, ECF No. 17) is GRANTED.
Pending Motions to Dismiss
are also two Motions to Dismiss pending in this case.
(RDB-16-806, ECF No. 5; RDB-16-2311, ECF No. 11.) These
motions will be resolved jointly subsequent to consolidation
of the two cases.
Clerk of Court is directed to docket the Motion (ECF No. 5),
Response in Opposition (ECF No. 10), and Reply (ECF No. 13)
from Civil Action No. RDB-16-806 in the consolidated
RDB-16-2311 case, where the Motion will remain
The Parties' Settlement Agreement
apparent from their filings that the parties entered into a
Settlement Agreement in January 2016. See
RDB-16-806, ECF No. 5-2; RDB-16-2311, ECF No. 2-1. However,
the nature, scope, and terms of the Settlement Agreement
remain undisclosed to the Court.
the Court's resolution of the pending Motions to
Dismiss-which, it appears, may hinge on the terms of the
Settlement Agreement-the parties are directed to file a
complete, unredacted copy of the Settlement Agreement with
the Court. To preserve the confidentiality of the agreement,
the filing shall be made under seal.
expedite this filing, counsel for defendants shall file a
complete, unredacted copy of the Settlement Agreement under
seal via CM/ECF no later 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 4,
2016. In addition, counsel for defendants shall provide a
copy of this submission to plaintiff.
reasons stated above, it is ...