Gardner v. New Mexico Board of Dental Health et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
WILLIAM GARDNER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:25-cv-00421-SMD-SCY
NEW MEXICO BOARD OF DENTAL HEALTH, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Plaintiff seeks to consolidate this case (“Gardner I”) with Gardner v. New Mexico, No.
1:25-cv-00730-SMD-SCY (“Gardner II”). 	See Motion to Consolidate Cases, Doc. 48, filed
August 21, 2025, in Gardner I (“Motion”). Both cases arise from Defendants’ alleged conspiracy
and due process violations related to Plaintiff’s application for reinstatement of his dental license.
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint in this case in state court on March 31, 2025. 	See
Doc. 1-1, filed May 2, 2025, in Gardner I. Defendant New Mexico Department of Justice removed
the case to this Court on May 2, 2025. See Doc. 1, in Gardner I.
Plaintiff filed his original complaint in Gardner II in this Court on August 1, 2025. See
Doc. 1, filed in Gardner II. The undersigned dismissed Gardner II without prejudice for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction before any defendants appeared. See Doc. 16, filed December 29, 2025,
in Gardner II. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Gardner II on January 10, 2026. See Doc.19, in
Gardner II. The appeal remains pending.
Plaintiff seeks to consolidate this case and Gardner II stating both cases “involve the
common question of law and facts regarding all three instances of no hearings.” Motion at 1.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to consolidate this case and Gardner II. 	Factors
considered influential in finding in favor of consolidation include: (i) interests of justice;
Case 1:25-cv-00421-SMD-SCY Document 72 Filed 03/29/26 Page 1 of 2

2
(ii) expeditious results; (iii) conservation of resources; and (iv) avoiding inconsistent results. See
8 Moore’s Federal Practice – Civil § 42.10[4]. 	Plaintiff has not shown that (i) Plaintiff will be
prejudiced if the cases are not consolidated; (ii) consolidation will avoid delay; (iii) consolidation
will economize the resources of the parties and the Court; or (iv) consolidation will avoid
producing inconsistent results between this case and Gardner II. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.1(a) (“A
motion must . . . state with particularity the grounds [for] the relief sought”). It does not appear to
the Court that the factors listed above warrant consolidation at this time because the undersigned
has dismissed Gardner II without prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Consolidate Cases, Doc. 48, filed August 21, 2025, is
DENIED.
_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00421-SMD-SCY Document 72 Filed 03/29/26 Page 2 of 2