You are on page 1of 2

Case 1:16-cv-04423-ALC-GWG Document 340 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 2

:.L:c· ,'JDNY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------)(
DEONTAY WILDER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, ORDER

16 Civ. 4423 (ALC) (GWG)
-v.- (Lead Case)

WORLD OF BO)(ING LLC, et al.,

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------)(

GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has considered the request of the WOB Parties to have judgment entered in 16
Civ. 4423 and the Wilder Parties' response. (Docket## 335-38).

In Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118, the Supreme Court considered whether cases
consolidated under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are "immediately
appealable upon an order disposing of that case." Id. at 1122. In the course of doing so, Hall
made clear that the "constituent cases" in a consolidated action have always "remained
independent when it came to judgments and appeals." Id. at 1125 (emphasis added). It
concluded that when "one of several consolidated cases is finally decided, a disappointed litigant
is free to seek review of that decision in the court of appeals." Id. at 1131.

While the Wilder Parties point to the fact that the claims in the Hall cases did not overlap
and that the instant cases have significant overlap, the issue of overlap was ultimately irrelevant
to the reasoning of Hall, which involved a careful consideration of the history and text of Rule
42 and the effect of consolidation. Indeed, the portion of Hall that set forth the analysis of Rule
42(a) made no mention of the lack of overlap in the two cases. Id. at 1128-31.

The Court is concerned, however, that the defamation claim in 16 Civ. 4870 may be a
compulsory counterclaim that should have been interposed in 16 Civ. 4423 under Fed. R. Civ. P.
13(a), and that the parties took no action to address this issue because they relied on pre-Hall
precedent suggesting that there would be no final judgment in the instant actions until all claims
in the consolidated cases were adjudicated. See, M:., McCullough v. World Wrestling Entm't.
Inc., 838 F.3d 210, 213-14 (2d Cir. 2016) (relying in part on the Supreme Court's refusal in
Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897, 904 n.4 (2015), to decide the issue that was
ultimately decided in Hall). The parties should be prepared to discuss this topic at the May 10,
2018, telephone conference. Also, the parties have leave to file letters on the topic in advance of
the conference.
Case 1:16-cv-04423-ALC-GWG Document 340 Filed 04/25/18 Page 2 of 2

Finally, the Court takes this opportunity to note that one the Court's law clerks has
recently made applications for employment to a number of law firms in New York, including the
WOB Parties' law firm. Since the application was made, the law clerk has not discussed the
consolidated case with the Court or Chambers' staff or performed any work on the case, and will
not to do so while the application is pending. The Court believes that this circumstance would
not cause the Court's impartiality to be reasonably questioned and that it will have no effect on
its ability to be impartial. Nonetheless, the Court concluded that it would be appropriate to make
the parties aware of it.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2018
New York, New York

2