## Facts

- On or about April 27, 1997, the vessel *Pool Ranger IV* capsized in the Gulf of Mexico.
- *Pool Ranger IV* was owned by Pool Company and, at the time of the casualty, was under charter to and being operated by American Marine Construction, Inc. (AMC).
- The capsizing led to two separate lawsuits filed in the same federal district court in Louisiana.
- In the first suit, Pool Company sued AMC, alleging AMC’s negligence caused the capsizing and that AMC was responsible for resulting damages.
- In the second suit, Daybrook Fisheries, Inc. and Highlands (its insurer) sued AMC for damage to Daybrook’s fishing vessel, the F/V *Celia*.
- Daybrook and Highlands alleged the F/V *Celia* was damaged after it struck a submerged leg of the *Pool Ranger IV* wreck that remained below the water line in the area of the casualty.
- Because both lawsuits arose from the same casualty and its aftermath, consolidation of the two actions was sought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).
- The proposed consolidation was supported by overlap in (i) factual questions about the capsizing and the failure to remove the wreck from waters used for vessel traffic, and (ii) legal questions tied to interpretation and allocation of responsibility under the same contract and indemnity agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether the two actions involved common questions of law or fact sufficient to permit consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).
2. Whether consolidation would serve efficiency and consistent adjudication without creating unfair prejudice, confusion, or undue delay.

## Decision

- The court granted consolidation under Rule 42(a).
- The court found the cases shared common factual questions stemming from the capsizing and the continuing presence of the wreck.
- The court also found common legal questions because liability in both matters required construing the same contract and indemnity agreement.
- On balance, the court concluded consolidation was an appropriate case-management step to reduce duplication and the risk of inconsistent outcomes.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) authorizes consolidation when actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact.
- Consolidation is discretionary; the court weighs efficiency and convenience against possible prejudice, confusion, and delay.
- Consolidation is especially appropriate when separate actions arise from the same event and will require overlapping proof and repeated interpretation of the same contractual provisions.
- The court may consolidate to streamline discovery and trial management and to reduce the chance of inconsistent determinations on shared issues.

## Conclusion

*Daybrook Fisheries, Inc. v. American Marine Construction, Inc.* addresses consolidation of two maritime actions arising from the *Pool Ranger IV* capsizing and the alleged harm caused by the remaining wreckage; because both suits turned on overlapping facts and the meaning of the same charter and indemnity agreement, the court exercised its Rule 42(a) discretion to consolidate the cases to streamline proceedings and avoid duplicative litigation.


Daybrook Fisheries, Inc. v. American Marine Construction, Inc., 1998 WL 748586 (1998)