210 Muni LLC v. Mahlum

Background

Anne Mahlum moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) to consolidate two related cases. The earlier-filed action, No. 1:25-cv-00435, was brought by 210 Muni LLC and Olympic Funding LLC against Mahlum. The opinion states that those plaintiffs alleged they entered commercial leases with Ambition Brooklyn and Ambition Manhattan and that Mahlum personally guaranteed the leases. They further alleged that the tenant entities defaulted and that Mahlum did not honor her guarantees.

The later-filed action, No. 1:25-cv-05611, was brought by Ambition Brooklyn and Ambition New York against 210 Muni and Olympic Funding. Those plaintiffs alleged that the lessors failed to make elevator repairs, failed to address building-wide problems, and misrepresented that the leased premises were fit for use as high-end fitness studios. They asserted breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims, alleging that the lease breaches forced the businesses to stop operating.

The parties had already conducted discovery in the earlier-filed action. The court had extended the discovery deadline to October 30, 2025, and had not set a trial or motion schedule in either case.

Legal standard

Rule 42(a) permits a court to consolidate actions involving a common question of law or fact. The moving party must show that the cases share factual or legal issues. The court has broad discretion, but efficiency cannot come at the expense of justice.

Court’s analysis

The court found consolidation warranted because both actions concern the same commercial leases, premises, and parties. The cases were likely to involve overlapping witnesses, discovery requests, and documents.

The court also found a direct legal connection between the cases. Mahlum had asserted as a defense that her guarantee obligations were extinguished because, among other things, the plaintiffs allegedly constructively evicted the tenant entities or accepted their surrender of the premises. Whether the lessors materially breached the leases was therefore relevant to the scope of Mahlum’s guarantee obligations in the earlier-filed action.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that consolidation would greatly delay the earlier-filed action. It noted that the discovery period had already been extended and that no trial or motion schedule had been set. The court also rejected the argument that the cases involved distinct issues, explaining that the alleged lease breaches could affect Mahlum’s guarantee obligations.

Disposition

The court granted Mahlum’s letter-motion for consolidation. It consolidated the earlier-filed action, No. 1:25-cv-00435, with the later-filed action, No. 1:25-cv-05611. Unless the court orders otherwise, future filings in the consolidated case must be filed under No. 1:25-cv-00435. The court stated that 210 Muni and Olympic Funding’s answer in the later-filed action remained due August 29, 2025, and ordered the parties to appear for a status conference on September 3, 2025. The opinion did not decide the underlying lease-breach or guarantee claims.