# Stewart v. Turner

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · June 15, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10156573

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** June 15, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10156573

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOHNNA D. SMITH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 3:22-cv-2109-JPG
)
DOUGLAS JERMAINE TURNER, and )
SMITH PACKAGE, LLC, )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________)
)
TIMOTHY R. BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
) Case No. 3:22-cv-2295-JPG
DOUGLAS JERMAINE TURNER, and )
SMITH PACKAGE, LLC, )
d/b/a SMITH TRANSPORTATION, )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________)
)
TIMOTHY R. BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
) Case No. 3:23-cv-1538-JPG
DOUGLAS JERMAINE TURNER, and )
SMITH PACKAGE, LLC, )
d/b/a SMITH TRANSPORTATION, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I. Introduction
This matter comes before the Court on two separate motions. The pending motions are
Motion to Consolidate by Plaintiffs Katharine Stewart and Camden Stewart (“Stewart
Plaintiffs”), and a Motion to Stay by Defendant Douglas Jermaine Turner (“Turner”). (Docs. 16
and 22).
II. Analysis

Neither motion is opposed and the time for doing so has passed. Pursuant to the U.S.
District Court Southern District of Illinois (“SDIL-LR”), all motions other than a motion to
remand, judgment on the pleading, summary judgment, to suppress, and post-trial motions, shall
have 14 days after service of the motion to file a written response. “Failure to file a timely response
to a motion may, in the Court’s discretion, be considered an admission of the merits of the motion.”
SDIL-LR 7.1(g). Therefore, any opposition or response to the motions were due June 8, 2023, and,
June 13, 2023, respectively. No party has filed oppositions to the pending motions and the time
for doing so has passed. Therefore, the Court considers a failure to oppose within the time periods
in SDIL-LR as an admission of the merits of the motion.
a. Motion to Consolidate

The Court will address the pending motion to consolidate. Here, the Stewart Plaintiffs
request that this case (Katharine Stewart and Camden Stewart v. Douglas Jermaine Turner, and
Smith Package, LLC d/b/a Smith Transportation, Case No. 23-cv-01538) be consolidated with
Johnna D. Smith v. Douglas J. Turner and Smith Package, LLC d/b/a Smith Transportation
(Case No. 22-cv-2109). Additionally, Smith v. Turner and Smith Package was previously
consolidated with Brown v. Turner and Smith Package, LLC (Case No. 22-cv-2295) on June 10,
2023 (Doc. 39). Therefore, the references to Smith v. Turner and Smith Package, LLC (Case No.
22-cv-2109) refers to the consolidated cases of Smith v. Turner and Smith Package, LLC and
Brown v. Turner and Smith Package, LLC (Case No. 22-cv-2295).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) grants federal district courts the authority and
discretion to consolidate related actions for greater efficiency. The Rule states: “If actions before
the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any
or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to

avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Courts should consolidate related actions
when possible to promote judicial economy, as long as the consolidation does not unduly prejudice
any party. Ikerd v. Lapworth, 435 F.2d 197, 204 (7th Cir. 1970); United States v. Knauer, 149 F.2d
519, 520 (7th Cir. 1945).
Here, the Court is comfortable finding that both cases involve a “common question of law
or fact.” Specifically, both cases involve the same defendants, same accident, and same negligence
claims. Thus, in the interests of judicial economy and pursuant to Rule 42(a), the Court hereby
CONSOLIDATES Stewart et al v. Turner et al (Case No. 23-cv-1538) with Smith v. Turner and
Smith Package, LLC (Case No. 22-2109-JPG). All future filing shall bear the consolidated caption
used in this order and shall be filed only in Smith v. Turner and Smith Package, LLC, Case No.

22-2109-JPG. The Court will strike any filings in Case No. 23-cv-1538-JPG subsequent to this
order.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CONSOLIDATE these cases and to file a copy of
this Order in both cases.
b. Motion to Stay
Currently, the consolidated case in Smith v. Turner and Smith Package is currently
stayed. Therefore, because the Court has consolidated the instant case (Stewart et al v. Turner et
al (Case No. 23-cv-1538), it is in the best interests of the plaintiffs, defendant, public, and
economy of this case to stay the instant case as well.
Turner asserts that there is a pending criminal charge for Improper Lane Usage and
Logbook Violation, Aggravated DUI in violation of 625 ILCS 5/11-501, captioned 2022-CF-173
(felony) and DUI / Possession of a Dangerous Substance in violation of 625 ILCS 5/11-501,
captioned 2022-CF-14 (class A misdemeanor), in White County, Illinois. Turner asserts that the

pending criminal charges arise out of the same events that constitute Smith’s civil lawsuit and,
therefore, his Fifth Amendment privilege is potentially threatened by defending the civil action.
As the Court has stated previously, the court has the inherent power to manage its docket
“with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
299 U.S. 248, 254–55, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936). Exercising this power requires balancing
the competing interests of plaintiffs, defendants, and the public. Id.; Hare v. Custable, 2008 WL
1995062, at *2 (N.D.Ill. 2008). Although stays in light of parallel criminal proceedings are not of
constitutional magnitude (United States v. All Meat and Poultry Prods. Stored at Lagrou Cold
Storage, 2006 WL 27119, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan.4, 2006)), courts nonetheless retain discretion to
issue stays in those circumstances. A court may stay a civil proceeding pending resolution of

criminal proceedings “when the interests of justice” require it. See United States v. Kordel, 397
U.S. 1, 12 n. 27, 90 S.Ct. 763, 25 L.Ed.2d 1 (1970).
To determine whether a stay will issue, the Court considers the following non-exhaustive
factors: (1) whether the civil and criminal proceedings involve the same subject matter; (2) whether
the government has initiated both proceedings; (3) the posture of the criminal proceeding; (4) the
effect on the public interest of granting or denying a stay; (5) the interest of Plaintiffs in proceeding
expeditiously, and the potential prejudice that Plaintiffs may suffer from a delay; and (6) the burden
that any particular aspect of the civil case may impose on Defendants if a stay is denied. Hare,
2008 WL 1995062 at *2 (citing Cruz v. County of DuPage, 1997 WL 370194, at *2
(N.D.Ill.1997)).
All factors weigh in favor of a stay. Specifically, both the civil and criminal proceedings
both involve the same subject matter, the government did not initiate both proceedings, the
indictment has been filed in the criminal case with the case proceeding judiciously. Tostado v.

Jackson, No. 10-cv-1162, 2011 WL 2116396, at *3 (E.D. Wis. May 25, 2011) (“The fact that the
criminal case is nearing its conclusion—with a trial date set for mid-July 2011—is also significant
because it means any delay in the civil proceeding would be minimal, excepting a further delay in
the criminal case.”). Additionally, prejudice to plaintiffs is minimal. Lastly, regarding the public
interest, other type of evidence could be elicited while criminal charges are pending. Additionally,
because Turner’s case has been stayed to the other consolidated plaintiffs, it is in the interest of
the judicial economy of the case to maintain the stay alongside the other cases. Therefore, all
factors weigh in favor of a stay.
Finding that weighing the relevant factors weighs in favor of a stay, the Court GRANTS
Motion to Stay (Doc. 22).

III. Conclusion
• GRANTS the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 16) in Case No. 23-cv-1538-JPG);
• CONSOLIDATES Stewart et al v. Turner et al (Case No. 23-cv-1538) with Smith v.
Turner and Smith Package, LLC (Case No. 22-2109-JPG). All future filing shall bear the
consolidated caption used in this order and shall be filed only in Smith v. Turner and
Smith Package, LLC, Case No. 22-2109-JPG;
• DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to CONSOLIDATE these cases and to file a copy of
this Order in both cases;
• GRANTS the Motion to Stay (Doc. 22) and STAYS this case consistent with the stay
issued in the consolidated case of Smith v. Turner and Smith Package, LLC (Case No. 22-
2109-JPG).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 15, 2023
/s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10156573. Public record. Not legal advice.