Estate of Tyrese West v. Giese
2:19-cv-01843
| E.D. Wis. | Jul 10, 2020Background
- Two related federal lawsuits were filed on December 17, 2019, arising from the same incident: Officer Eric Giese allegedly shot and killed Tyrese West on June 15, 2019.
- Case 19-cv-1843 (Giese I): Estate of Tyrese West (by Monique West, special administrator) sued Officer Giese and the Village of Mount Pleasant; claims include federal excessive-force (§ 1983/1988) and state wrongful-death and indemnification claims against the Village.
- Case 19-cv-1844 (Giese II): Estate and Dwight Person sued Officer Giese (no Village defendant); alleges federal excessive-force claim under § 1983/1988.
- Defendant Giese moved to consolidate the two cases under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and the local rule; plaintiffs did not file responses to the motion.
- The court found the cases share common parties, facts, and legal questions (whether the shooting was wrongful/excessive force) despite the Village and state-law claims in Giese I.
- The court granted consolidation, ordered all filings under the lowest-numbered case (19-cv-1843), and directed docketing/captioning accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two actions should be consolidated under Rule 42(a) because they involve common questions of law or fact | Plaintiffs did not respond to the motion | Consolidation appropriate because both cases arise from the same shooting, share common parties and federal law claims, and consolidation promotes efficiency | Granted — cases consolidated under the lower-numbered docket (19-cv-1843) |
| Whether the presence of the Village defendant and state-law wrongful-death and indemnification claims in Giese I preclude consolidation | No operative opposition (no response filed) | Differences are limited and relate to indemnification; core factual and legal issues (reasonableness of force) overlap | Differences insufficient to defeat consolidation; no prejudice or confusion found |
| Whether consolidation would cause prejudice or judicial confusion outweighing efficiency | No response asserting prejudice | Consolidation avoids duplicate efforts and promotes judicial economy; federal excessive-force inquiry parallels wrongful-death causation issues | Court found no prejudice or likely confusion and ordered consolidation |
Key Cases Cited
- Star Ins. Co. v. Risk Marketing Group, Inc., 561 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2009) (district court consolidation decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Knauer, 149 F.2d 519 (7th Cir. 1945) (courts should try to consolidate related cases to promote efficiency)
- Henning v. O'Leary, 477 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2007) (recognizes wrongful-death claims in Wisconsin and relation to excessive-force actions)