Plants Wholesale LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
PLANTS WHOLESALE, LLC, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-3219-D
§
MASSACHUSETTS BAY 	§
INSURANCE COMPANY, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Defendant Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (“Massachusetts Bay”) moves to
consolidate this lawsuit, Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-3219-D, with Civil Action No.
3:25-CV-0565-D. For the reasons that follow, the court denies the motion.1
I
On October 20, 2025 plaintiff Plants Wholesale LLC (“Plants Wholesale”) filed this
action in Texas state court against Massachusetts Bay, asserting claims for breach of contract
and violation of the Texas Insurance Code. 	On November 21, 2025 Massachusetts Bay
removed the case to this court, where it was docketed as Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-3219-K.2
1Massachusetts Bay filed duplicate motions to consolidate: one before and one after
this case was reassigned to the undersigned’s docket. Because the motions are identical, the
court has statistically terminated the first motion by electronic order and is deciding the
second motion in this memorandum opinion and order.
2The suffic letter “K” was changed to “D” when the case was reassigned to the
undersigned judge.
Case 3:25-cv-03219-D Document 38 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

Massachusetts Bay now seeks to consolidate this case with Plants Wholesale’s earlier-filed
suit against Massachusetts Bay. The earlier case, which was originally filed in Texas state
court on January 28, 2025, was removed to this court on March 6, 2025 and docketed as Civil
Action No. 3:25-CV-0565-D.3 Plants Wholesale opposes the motion, which the court is
deciding on the briefs, without oral argument.
II
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) permits a district court to consolidate “actions before the court
involv[ing] a common question of law or fact.” Rule 42(a). Consolidation is proper when
it will avoid unnecessary costs or delay without prejudicing the rights of the parties. See
Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 761-62 (5th Cir. 1989). “A trial court has broad
discretion in determining whether to consolidate a case pending before it.” 	Id. at 762
(quoting Alley v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 767 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir.1985)). “Consolidation
may properly be denied in instances where the cases are at different stages of preparedness
for trial.” Id.
The court denies Massachusetts Bay’s motion to consolidate. Although both cases
involve the same parties, similar insurance policies, and some overlapping factual questions
regarding the calculation of Plants Wholesale’s lost business income, each concerns different
3On March 19, 2026 the court directed Plants Wholesale to explain whether it had
intentionally filed duplicate copies of the amended petition. Plants Wholesale clarified in
response that this was unintentional, and moved to withdraw the amended petition incorrectly
filed in Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-0565-D. 	On March 30, 2026 the court granted Plants
Wholesale’s unopposed motion to withdraw. Accordingly, the operative complaint in Civil
Action No. 3:25-CV-0565-D is Plants Wholesale’s original state court petition.
-2-
Case 3:25-cv-03219-D Document 38 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

winter storms that occurred nearly one year apart. Factual differences between how the two
storms impacted Plants Wholesale’s property may, for example, determine whether
Massachusetts Bay is liable at all and require different expert testimony in each case.
Moreover, the cases are at different stages of preparation. In this case, discovery does not
close until September 2026, and the trial is set for the two-week docket of April 5, 2027. In
the earlier-filed case, discovery is complete, and the trial is currently set for the two week
docket of May 18, 2026, fewer than two months from now. Under these circumstances, it
is not clear that consolidation would reduce the time and cost of trying the cases separately.
See Entropic Commc’ns, LLC v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., 2023 WL 5613185, at *2 (E.D.
Tex. Aug. 29, 2023) (denying motion to consolidate because the suits were at different stages
of discovery and plaintiff “should not have to delay in bringing its case to trial”); Gore v.
Trans Union LLC, 2023 WL 12039747, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2023) (Ramirez, J.)
(denying motion to consolidate where both cases involved “common parties and issues” but
were at “different stages”).4 Additionally, the risk of inconsistent judgments resulting from
separate trials is minimal because the cases are assigned to the same district judge. See Gore,
2023 WL 12039747, at *2 (concluding the same).
4Nor does Massachusetts Bay’s contention that, were the cases to be consolidated, the
court could modify the scheduling order in both cases account for the delay that would result
in the earlier filed case. See Baez v. Yourway Express, LLC, 2017 WL 8811739, at *1 (W.D.
Tex. Dec. 5, 2017) (explaining that consolidation “could lead to unnecessary costs and delay,
especially given that [defendant] requests a new scheduling order”).
-3-
Case 3:25-cv-03219-D Document 38 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

* 	* 	*
For 	the 	reasons 	explained, 	the 	court 	denies 	Massachusetts 	Bay’s 	motion 	to
consolidate.
SO ORDERED.
March 30, 2026.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
SENIOR JUDGE
-4-
Case 3:25-cv-03219-D Document 38 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>