Mondano v. Banks
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-03907
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mondano v. Banks, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein denied consolidation because the referenced case is before another judge.
The defendants’ request to consolidate this case with the earlier case was denied. The plaintiffs and defendants remain parties to this case, and the defendants may still seek related-case treatment and transfer under the cited local-rule procedure.
What happened
Mondano v. Banks involves an earlier case brought by the same plaintiffs against the same defendants. The cases overlap in the school years and payments at issue, although some legal theories and requested amounts differ.
The defendants asked that this case be dismissed, transferred, or consolidated with the earlier case. The opinion addresses the request to consolidate.
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied the motion to consolidate because the earlier case is pending before another district judge. He noted that the defendants may ask Judge Woods to treat the cases as related and request a transfer under the Southern District of New York’s local rules.
The detailed version
- Mondano v. Banks · No. 1:23-cv-03907
- Gregory Woods
- June 12, 2023
Background
The defendants informed the court that the same plaintiffs, represented by the same law firm, had already filed an earlier case against the same defendants challenging the same administrative determination. The earlier case was pending before another district judge, and the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in that case were expected to be fully submitted on June 13, 2023.
The defendants stated that both cases sought payment for part of the 2021–2022 school year and the entire 2022–2023 school year. For part of the 2021–2022 school year, the cases involved different legal theories and different amounts of money. For the 2022–2023 school year, the legal theory and requested relief were the same. The defendants sought dismissal or transfer of this case, or consolidation with the earlier case.
Ruling
The motion to consolidate is denied. Judge Gorenstein explained that the referenced case was pending before another district judge and therefore could not be consolidated with this case. The opinion cited a prior Southern District of New York decision stating that a court cannot order consolidation of cases pending on other judges’ dockets.
The court also explained that Southern District of New York Rule 13 provides a procedure for seeking a finding that cases are related and requesting transfer of the case with the higher docket number to the judge handling the case with the lower docket number. The defendants remained free to make that application to Judge Woods. The order did not rule on the defendants’ separate requests for dismissal or transfer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.