Xcoal Energy & Resources v. Acciaierie D'Italia S.P.A.

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
XCOAL ENERGY & RESOURCES, 	)
)
Plaintiff/Counter-Claim Defendant, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIV. ACT. NO. 1:23-cv-361-TFM-C
)
ACCIAIERIE D’ITALIA S.P.A., 	) 	In Admiralty
)
Defendant/Counter-Claim Plaintff, 	)
)
JAVELIN GLOBAL COMMODITIES 	)
(UK) LTD., 	)
)
Intervenor Plaintiff 	)
JAVELIN GLOBAL COMMODITIES 	)
(UK) LTD. 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIV. ACT. NO. 1:23-cv-444-TFM-C
)
XCOAL ENERGY & RESOURCES, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Consent Motion to Consolidate Proceedings (Civ. Act. No.
1:23-cv-361, Doc. 98, filed 8/1/24; Civ. Act. No. 1:23-cv-444, Doc. 30, filed 8/1/24). For good
cause, it is ORDERED that the motions to consolidate are GRANTED.
I. 	DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state: “[i]f 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
Case 1:23-cv-00361-TFM-C Doc# 99 Filed 08/01/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
delay.” FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) “is a codification of a trial court’s inherent
managerial power ‘to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and
effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d
1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing In re Air Crash Disaster at Fla. Everglades, 549 F.2d 1006,
1012 (5th Cir. 1977)). However, as noted by the plain language in the use of the word “may,” the
Court’s decision under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) is purely discretionary. See also Eghnayem v. Boston
Sci. Corp., 873 F.3d 1304, 1313 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Hendrix, 776 F.2d at 1495)
(emphasizing decision is “purely discretionary.”). 	In exercising that discretion, the Court must
take into account the following factors: (1) whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible
confusion are overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal
issues; (2) the burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple
lawsuits; (3) the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one; and (4)
the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives. Id. Finally, the
Court may decide to consolidate for pretrial, trial, or both.
Turning to the situation at hand, the Court finds that the majority of the above factors are
met. 	Additionally, the parties agree that the matters should be consolidated for all purposes
including trial.
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated above, it is ORDERED that the motions to consolidate (Civ.
Act. No. 1:23-cv-361, Doc. 98; Civ. Act. No. 1:23-cv-444, Doc. 30) are GRANTED. The cases
are consolidated with the first filed case (1:23-cv-361-TFM-C) being designated the lead case.
The parties are also DIRECTED to use the consolidated header used on this order.
Case 1:23-cv-00361-TFM-C Doc# 99 Filed 08/01/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2024.
/s/ Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-00361-TFM-C Doc# 99 Filed 08/01/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>