In Re: Lindell Management LLC Litigation
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-01433
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In re Lindell Management LLC Litigation: Judge Foster consolidated two cases concerning one arbitration award, making Zeidman’s case the lead case.
Robert Zeidman and Lindell Management LLC. Their two cases were combined for pretrial and trial proceedings, with Zeidman’s case serving as the lead case and Lindell’s separate case being administratively closed. The order did not decide whether the arbitration award should be confirmed or vacated.
What happened
In re: Lindell Management LLC Litigation involved two cases challenging the same arbitration award: one sought to confirm it, and the other sought to vacate it. Robert Zeidman asked the court to combine the cases, while Lindell Management LLC opposed that request and proposed different case-management options.
The court ruled that the cases raised common legal and factual questions and that combining them would avoid duplicated work and expense. It granted Zeidman’s request for consolidation, made Zeidman’s case the lead case, directed that future filings use the consolidated caption, and administratively closed Lindell’s separate case.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster emphasized that the order did not decide which party was right about the arbitration award and did not affect the District Judge’s consideration of Lindell’s pending motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- In Re: Lindell Management LLC Litigation · No. 0:23-cv-01433
- John Tunheim
- June 22, 2023
Background
The order concerns two related federal cases about the same arbitration award issued on April 19, 2023:
- In Zeidman v. Lindell Management LLC, No. 23-cv-1433, Robert Zeidman filed a petition asking the court to confirm the award. - In Lindell Management LLC v. Zeidman, No. 23-cv-1759, Lindell filed a petition asking the court to vacate the award. Zeidman removed that action from Hennepin County District Court to federal court.
Zeidman asked the court to consolidate the two cases. Lindell opposed consolidation, arguing that its state-court filing came first and should receive priority under the first-to-file rule. Lindell also asked the court to dismiss Zeidman’s case as duplicative. Alternatively, Lindell asked the court to consolidate the cases with Lindell’s case as the lead case.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that the two cases were “mirror images” because both challenged the same arbitration award. It found that the petitions involved common questions of law and fact under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The court also concluded that consolidation would promote efficiency and prevent unnecessary duplication of work and expense.
The court criticized both parties’ litigation strategies and warned them against duplicative filings and unnecessary motions. It rejected Lindell’s argument for making its case the lead case, noting that both cases were already proceeding in the same federal district before the same District Judge and Magistrate Judge, and that Lindell had not asked the court to return its case to Hennepin County.
Order and effect
The court granted Zeidman’s request for consolidation. It ordered that:
- The two cases would be consolidated for pretrial and trial proceedings.
- Zeidman’s case, No. 23-cv-1433, would be the lead case because it was the first-filed case in the District of Minnesota.
- Future filings would be filed in the lead case under the caption “In re: Lindell Management LLC Litigation.”
- Filings in the lead case would be treated as filed in the relevant related case, without separate docketing in the other case.
- The Clerk of Court would add the parties and attorneys from the related case to the lead case, and existing admissions to practice for that limited proceeding would remain valid.
- Lindell’s separate case, No. 23-cv-1759, would be administratively closed.
Judge Foster expressly stated that consolidation did not decide the merits of either petition, did not declare a winner or loser, and did not affect the District Judge’s decision on Lindell’s pending motion to dismiss the petition in Zeidman’s case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.