Beazer v. Rebekah Rehab & Extended Care Center
- Kimba Wood
- 1:23-cv-00967
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Beazer v. Rebekah Rehab, Judge Wood proposed consolidating two related actions for pretrial purposes unless a party objects by June 24, 2024.
Althea Beazer and the defendants in the two related actions—Rebekah Rehab & Extended Care Center, Kenneth Gelb, Connie Calpado, Rebekah Rehab Center & Extended Care Center, and Ivan Ramkhelawan-Sin—were affected by the proposed pretrial consolidation.
What happened
In Beazer v. Rebekah Rehab & Extended Care Center, Althea Beazer brought two related actions involving the care center and different individual defendants. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The court said the two actions involve common legal or factual questions and stated that it intended to combine them for pretrial purposes unless a party objected. Any objection was due by June 24, 2024.
Judge Kimba M. Wood issued the order on June 17, 2024. The order states an intended consolidation rather than confirming that consolidation had already occurred.
The detailed version
- Beazer v. Rebekah Rehab & Extended Care Center · No. 1:23-cv-00967
- Kimba Wood
- June 17, 2024
Background
Two related actions were pending before the Southern District of New York:
- The first action, No. 23-CV-967, was brought by Althea Beazer against Rebekah Rehab & Extended Care Center, Kenneth Gelb, and Connie Calpado. - The second action, No. 24-CV-1057, was brought by Althea Beazer against Rebekah Rehab Center & Extended Care Center and Ivan Ramkhelawan-Sin.
The opinion does not explain the underlying claims or the factual disputes in either action.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact. The court stated that judges have broad discretion to decide whether consolidation is appropriate and may order consolidation on their own initiative.
Ruling
The court stated that, unless a party objected, it intended to consolidate the two actions for all pretrial purposes. The court required any objection to be made by June 24, 2024. The order therefore announced a proposed consolidation subject to objections; it did not state that the actions had already been consolidated.
Effect
The order concerned the management of the two related cases before trial. It did not decide the merits of Beazer’s claims or the defendants’ defenses.
Possible Text Issue
The second action’s caption identifies the individual defendant as “Ivan Ramkhelawan-Sin,” while the body of the opinion spells the name “Ivan Ramkhelewan-Sin” in one place. This summary uses the caption spelling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.