Opinion

Kamin v. Wake County Public School System Board of Education

Court
District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Filed
Jan 27, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.6%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF )

EDUCATION, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 5:19-CV-497-BO

)

S.K., by and through her parent, R.K., )

Defendant. )

RHONDA K., individually and on behalf)

of S.K., her minor child, )

Plaintiff, )

)

V. ) No. 5:19-CV-498-BO

)

WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL )

SYSTEM BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) .

Defendant. )

ORDER

These matters are before the Court on a joint motion by the parties to consolidate these

cases.

Both cases arise from state proceedings regarding S.K.’s assertion, through her parent, that

the Wake County Board of Education had denied her a free and appropriate education when it

taifecl to provide ani appropriate indivicualized education plan. In the first filed action, the Wake

County Board of Education seeks relief from portions of the order of a state hearing review officer.

In the second, S.K. and her parent seek attorney fees arising from the state proceeding as the state

hearing review officer ruled in their favor. Both cases were filed in this court on November 6,

2019, and both now proceed before the undersigned.

Rule 42 provides for the consolidation of actions pending before a court if the actions

involve common questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The Court has broad discretion

to consolidate cases pending in this district. A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Const.

Co., 559 F.2d 928, 933 (4th Cir. 1977). In determining whether to consolidate cases, a court

considers the risks of prejudice and possible confusion against the risk of inconsistent

adjudications of common factual and legal issues, as well as the burden on the parties and judicial

resources including the length of time required to conclude multiple suits and the relative expense

to all concerned. Arnold v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 1982).

These cases plainly involve common questions of law and fact, and efficiency dictates that

they proceed as one action. The motion to consolidate is GRANTED. The above-listed cases are

hereby CONSOLIDATED for the purposes of discovery and motions filing. If necessary, the

Court will consider at the appropriate time whether the cases should continue to be consolidated

for the purposes of trial.

All future filings shall be made only in the first filed action, No. 5:19-CV-497-BO, which

is designated as the lead case. All future filings shall reflect the case caption for each of the

consolidated cases, as above, with the notation that the matter is proceeding as a consolidatsd

action. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter this order in each of the now-consolidated cases; future

orders shall be entered only in the lead case unless otherwise directed.

Finally, the clerk is DIRECTED to, after the entry of this order, remove case No. 5:19-CV-

498-BO from the Court’s active docket. The clerk shall return that case to the active docket on

order of the Court, including for purposes of the entry of judgment.

SO ORDERED, this / day of January, 2020.

[Ass W. BOYLE /

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.