# Kamin v. Wake County Public School System Board of Education

> District Court, E.D. North Carolina · January 27, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10250853

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** January 27, 2020
- **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/10250853

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10250853. Public record. Not legal advice.