United States District Court, D. Idaho
In re MARTIN D. FRANTZ and CYNTHIA M. FRANTZ, Debtors.
IDAHO INDEPENDENT BANK, and DAVID P. GARDNER, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellees. MARTIN D. FRANTZ and CYNTHIA M. FRANTZ, Appellants,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye U.S. District Court Judge
March 26, 2018, Debtors Martin Frantz and Cynthia Frantz
(“Appellants”) filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”).
Dkt. 1-1, at 2-4. Because Appellants appealed three separate
orders generated by three separate motions in their
underlying bankruptcy case, the BAP divided the appeal into
three separate cases. Dkt. 1-9, at 1. On April 12, 2018,
Idaho Independent Bank sent notice to the BAP that it was
exercising its right to have the appeal heard by the District
Court rather than the BAP. Dkt. 1-8, at 11-16. On April 19,
2018, the BAP transferred all three cases to the District of
Idaho. Dkt. 1-9, at 2-3. The three appeals were filed on
April 26, 2018, as cases 2:18-cv-00188 (“Case
188”); 2:18-cv-00189 (“Case 189”); and
2:18-cv-00190 (“Case 190”). Case 188 and case 189
were assigned to the undersigned District Judge, and Case 190
was assigned to District Judge Edward J. Lodge. For
convenience, Judge Lodge reassigned Case 190 to the
undersigned. In order to further streamline these matters,
and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court now
consolidates the three cases back into one case.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outline that consolidation
is appropriate when multiple actions “involving a
common question of law or fact” are pending before the
Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The Court need not
wait for a motion from either party to consolidate, but can
invoke Rule 42(a) sua sponte. See Miller v. United States
Postal Serv., 729 F.2d 1033, 1036 (5th Cir. 1984).
the District of Idaho has never addressed the consolidation
of bankruptcy appeals, numerous other courts have done so.
See, e.g., In re Corneal, No.
CIV.JFM-00-3536, 2001 WL 34388125, at *2 (D. Md. Oct. 1,
2001), aff'd, 52 Fed.Appx. 620 (4th Cir. 2002);
In re Young, No. EDCV 11-1628-GW, 2012 WL 5834180,
at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012); In re M.G., No.
BANKR. C-03-20197, 2006 WL 3044458, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 25,
2006); In re Clifford, 255 B.R. 258, 262 (D. Mass.
2000), amended, No. 00-CV-40158-NMG, 2001 WL 491132
(D. Mass. Jan. 18, 2001). These courts have applied the same
standards in determining whether to consolidate bankruptcy
appeals as are utilized when considering consolidation in
Court turns to the applicable standard in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 42(a). Here, there is no question that all
three cases involve common questions of law and fact. The
Appellants and Appellees are the same in all three cases and
the three orders Appellants are appealing are from the same
underlying Bankruptcy proceedings. Consolidating the cases
will better utilize judicial resources, avoid unnecessary
cost, and streamline the appeals process for all parties
188 was filed first (or at least assigned first numerically)
and appears to have some additional documents not included in
Case 189 and Case 190, it will be the lead case, with Case
189 and Case 190 as member cases. The parties shall follow
the instruction as outlined below concerning future filings.
consolidation, the Clerk of the Court will issue a
“Certificate of Readiness.” Once the Clerk issues
the Certificate of Readiness, the Court will enter an order
outlining the briefing schedule and further instructions for
currently pending in all three cases is a Motion to Seal.
Case 188, Dkt. 5. The Court requests that Appellees (either
individually or collectively) file a brief response
indicating their position on the Motion.
Cases 2:18-cv-00188, 2:18-cv-00189, and 2:18-cv-00190 are
hereby CONSOLIDATED into a single bankruptcy appeal before
All future filings shall be made only in No.
2:18-cv-00188-DCN, which is now the lead case. The original
of this Order shall be maintained as part of the record in
this case with a signed copy being ...