Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 15 Filed 04/09/14 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION SLOAN GRIMSLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICK SCOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of Florida, et al., Defendants. __________________________________/ JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE COME NOW, the plaintiffs and defendants, by undersigned counsel, and jointly move the Court to (1) consolidate this case with Brenner et al. v. Governor Rick Scott et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-107-RH/CAS (N.D. Fla.); and (2) set a coordinated briefing schedule for both cases as proposed below. As grounds for granting this motion, the parties submit the following: 1. On March 26, 2014, this Court held a telephonic status conference in the Case No. 4:14-cv-138-RH/CAS

Brenner case. Counsel for all the parties in this case were present at that status conference. Subsequently, the Court entered an order that rescheduled the status conference for April 18, 2014, in the Brenner case and extended the deadline for the defendants in that case “to respond to the complaint and preliminary-injunction motion” until April 25, 2014. (Brenner case, DE 20).

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 15 Filed 04/09/14 Page 2 of 5


In that order, the Court also noted its intention to conduct the status

conference “jointly” with one in this case. (Brenner case, DE 20 at 2). Indeed, the Court set a status conference in this case for the same day and time as the one in the Brenner case. (DE 11). The Court also extended the deadline for the defendants to respond to the complaint in this case to April 25, 2014, the same deadline reset in the Brenner case. (DE 11 at 2). 3. Counsel for the parties in this case conferred about an efficient way to

facilitate the Court’s management of the two related actions. They agree that there are common questions of law arising in this section 1983 action and the section 1983 action filed in Brenner; in particular, both complaints seek a declaration on the constitutionality of article I, section 27, of the Constitution of the State of Florida and of section 741.212, Florida Statutes. (Compare DE 1 at 20 with Brenner Case, DE 10 at 18). 4. To conserve judicial resources and ensure the efficient resolution of the

legal issues pending in this case and in Brenner, the parties suggest to the Court that consolidation would be appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Consolidation would permit the Court to set one discovery, briefing, and hearing schedule, including a schedule for consideration of requests for injunctive relief and of dispositive motions, for both cases. The defendants anticipate filing a similar motion to consolidate in the Brenner case. The parties note, however, that even with consolidation, the cases would not be “merge[d] into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another.” Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 49697 (1933); see also Xaros v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 820 F.2d 1176, 1180 n.1 (11th Cir.


Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 15 Filed 04/09/14 Page 3 of 5

1987); Chaara v. Intel Corp., 410 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1089-090 (D.N.M. 2005) (citing circuit cases that note that consolidation does not create one civil action out of two). Counsel for plaintiffs in both this case and Brenner have indicated that it is important to their respective clients that they be represented by their own counsel. Each case would retain its own identity, with plaintiffs’ counsel in each case retaining the right to argue on behalf of their respective clients. 5. Plaintiffs in this case intend to file an amended complaint shortly, and that

amended pleading will add another plaintiff. Plaintiffs also intend to file a motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants in this case, as they did at the status conference held in Brenner, suggest that the most efficient manner in which to proceed would be to have one consolidated memorandum from these defendants in support of their anticipated motions to dismiss and in opposition to preliminary injunction motions filed both in this case and in Brenner. 6. To allow the plaintiffs in this case sufficient time to file their amended

pleading and their motion for preliminary injunction and to allow the defendants sufficient time to respond to both, the parties jointly request that the Court extend its schedule by two weeks. They ask that the Court set April 25, 2014, as the deadline for plaintiffs to amend their pleading and file their motion for preliminary injunction; and they ask that it set May 12, 2014, as the deadline for the defendants to respond to the operative pleading and the motion for preliminary injunction. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs and defendants jointly pray that the Court consolidate this case with the Brenner case (Case No. 4:14-cv-107-RH/CAS); and that


Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 15 Filed 04/09/14 Page 4 of 5

the Court set April 25, 2014, as the deadline for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and their motion for preliminary injunction, and May 12, 2014, as the deadline for the defendants to file their response to both the operative pleading and the motion. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel B. Tilley DANIEL B. TILLEY Florida Bar No. 102882 MARIA KAYANAN Florida Bar No. 305601 ACLU Found. of Florida 4500 Biscayne Blvd. Ste 340 Miami, FL 33137 (786) 363-2700 BENJAMIN J. STEVENSON Florida Bar. No. 598909 ACLU Found. of Florida P.O. Box 12723 Pensacola, FL 32591 (786) 363-2738

STEPHEN F. ROSENTHAL Florida Bar No. 131458 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street Ste 800 Miami, FL 33130 (305) 358-2800 LESLIE COOPER* ACLU Foundation 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 549-2627 *Admission to N.D. Fla. forthcoming

/s/ Adam S. Tanenbaum ALLEN WINSOR Florida Bar No. 16295 ADAM S. TANENBAUM Florida Bar No. 117498 Office of the Attorney General The Capitol – PL01 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Phone: (850) 414-3688 Facsimile: (850) 410-2672

Attorneys for Defendants

Attorneys for Plaintiffs


Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 15 Filed 04/09/14 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ninth day of April, 2014, a true copy of the foregoing joint motion was filed with the Court utilizing its CM/ECF system, which will transmit a notice of said electronic filing to the plaintiffs’ counsel of record, who are registered with the Court for that purpose.

/s/ Adam S. Tanenbaum ADAM S. TANENBAUM


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful