State of New York v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-10642
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In State of New York v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Judge Liman planned to combine two related cases and invited objections by December 28.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Case Nos. 20-cv-10642 and 20-cv-10645 were affected because any party opposing the proposed consolidation had to file a letter by December 28, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.
What happened
State of New York v. United States Environmental Protection Agency involves two related cases assigned to the same court. The court scheduled a December 23 hearing on a request for a temporary restraining order in one case.
For efficiency, the court said it intended to combine the cases into one action. It gave any party opposing that plan until December 28 at 5:00 p.m. to file a letter of no more than two pages explaining the objection.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the parties to submit any objections by the deadline but did not yet order the cases consolidated.
The detailed version
- State of New York v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · No. 1:20-cv-10642
- Lewis Liman
- Dec. 21, 2020
Background
The court stated that the two cases had been assigned to it because they were related. It had scheduled a hearing for December 23 at 5:00 p.m. on an application for a temporary restraining order in Case No. 20-cv-10645.
Proposed Consolidation
For convenience, speed, and efficient use of judicial resources, the court said it intended to consolidate the two cases into a single action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2). The court cited decisions recognizing that district courts have broad discretion to consolidate related cases and that consolidation can avoid duplicative proceedings and reduce the time and expense involved in pretrial matters.
Order
The court ordered that any party objecting to consolidation for all purposes must file a letter on the electronic court filing system by December 28 at 5:00 p.m. The letter could not exceed two pages and had to explain why the cases should not be consolidated. The order stated the court's intention to consolidate but did not itself direct that consolidation had occurred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.