- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: March 27, 2018
- Case #: 16-1150
- Judge(s)/Court Below: ROBERTS, C.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
- Full Text Opinion
Respondent was legal advisor and caretaker to his mother who sued him for breach of fiduciary duty and transferred her property into an inter vivos trust, naming Petitioner, her daughter, as successor trustee. Upon the mother’s death, Petitioner succeeded her as plaintiff. The District Court required Respondent to file a separate complaint against Petitioner individually and the two cases were consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). A jury returned a verdict against Petitioner as Trustee, who immediately appealed. Respondent moved for dismissal, arguing that the judgment against Petitioner as trustee was not final and appealable while the case against Petitioner in her individual capacity was pending. The Court of Appeals agreed and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, reasoning that the term “consolidate” does not necessarily mean that cases lose their distinct identities once combined under FRCP 42(a). Additionally, the Court consulted its own historical understanding of “consolidation” as a mechanism enabling efficient case management while preserving the unique rights of the parties. The Court held that when one of several cases consolidated under Rule 42(a) is decided, that decision confers the right of appeal upon the losing party, regardless of whether any of the other combined cases remain unresolved. REVERSED and REMANDED.