CASE NO. 08-00281 BKT ADV. NO.: 12-054
Defendants' Motion requesting substantive consolidation (Dkt No. 29), is hereby DENIED. The adversary complaints which Defendants seek to consolidate do not involve the same or even related debtors, as set forth in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1015. Moreover, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), made applicable to these proceedings by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7042, the Court may consolidate, for joint hearing or trial, actions involving common question of law or fact. Defendants, as the party moving for consolidation, bear the burden of persuading the Court that consolidation is desirable by showing the commonality of factual and legal issues in the different actions. See MacAlister v. Guterma, 263 F.2d 65, 70 (2d Cir. 1958). The complaints and claims for relief are grounded on alleged collection efforts by Defendants which purportedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the automatic stay orders in each of the cases. However, while the cases may involve some similar questions of law or facts, Defendants have made no showing that these cases are sufficiently related to warrant consolidation. Furthermore, no appreciable saving of time or expense will result from the consolidation vis a vis the possible delay or prejudice involved in consolidation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 04 day of June, 2012.
Brian K. Tester
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
CC: ALL CREDITORS