In Re: Fairfield Sentry Limited
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-03911
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In re Fairfield Sentry v. Citibank, Judge Broderick consolidated 18 related appeals involving common legal and factual questions.
Fairfield Sentry Limited (in liquidation), Kenneth Krys in his stated capacity, Citibank NA London, and the parties to the 18 actions listed in Exhibit A, including the defendants-appellants in those actions.
What happened
In re Fairfield Sentry Limited concerns 18 related appeals involving Fairfield Sentry Limited (in liquidation), its foreign representative and liquidator, and various defendants. The court considered whether the appeals shared common legal or factual questions.
The court found that they did and that consolidation would promote efficient judicial administration. It ordered the 18 actions listed in Exhibit A consolidated into Case No. 19-CV-3911, with future filings using that case number and the caption in the order.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the motion to consolidate and directed the Clerk of Court to combine the listed cases.
The detailed version
- In Re: Fairfield Sentry Limited · No. 1:19-cv-03911
- Vernon Broderick
- May 10, 2021
Background
The order concerns 18 related appeals listed in Exhibit A. The caption identifies Fairfield Sentry Limited (in liquidation) and Kenneth Krys, in his stated capacity, as plaintiffs-appellants, and Citibank NA London as defendant-appellee. The order states that related appeals were already consolidated before the court.
Court’s reasoning
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 permits consolidation when actions involve a common question of law or fact. The court stated that district courts have broad discretion to consolidate actions and found that the cases involved common legal and factual questions. It also found that consolidation would serve judicial economy, meaning it would promote more efficient handling of the cases.
Ruling
The court granted the Defendants-Appellants’ motion to consolidate. It ordered that the 18 actions listed in Exhibit A be consolidated with and into Case No. 19-CV-3911. It further ordered that all future motions and other filings use Case No. 19-CV-3911 and the caption stated in the order, and directed the Clerk of Court to consolidate the listed cases. The order did not decide the underlying claims or defenses in those actions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.