Futrell v. AV Leasing LLC, 4:23-cv-00118

Two related cases (Futrell I and Futrell II) arise from a December 16, 2022, motor vehicle collision in York County, Virginia, involving a tractor trailer and a party bus.
In Futrell I, Towanda R. Futrell sued Cramer (truck driver), AV Leasing LLC (truck owner), Triton Logistics, and WDTC, LLC, for negligence and respondeat superior, alleging Cramer negligently operated the truck while working within the scope of employment and violating hours-of-service regulations.
After protracted discovery disputes, AV Leasing was dismissed from Futrell I for failure to state a claim, largely due to repeated failures by plaintiff's counsel to comply with court orders and deadlines.
Futrell then filed Futrell II, adding 10 new defendants and alleging a broader scheme involving fraudulent logbook practices and regulatory violations by multiple entities related to Triton and Universal Logistics.
Futrell moved to consolidate the two cases, arguing common questions of law and fact existed; all defendants opposed, and some moved to strike the motion.
At the time of the ruling, Futrell I was nearing trial (pending only pretrial steps) while Futrell II was in its infancy with several motions to dismiss pending and no substantive discovery undertaken.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consolidation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) was appropriate	Cases have common facts/law; consolidation aids efficiency and avoids prejudice to Futrell due to late-discovered evidence (NTSB report)	Consolidation would cause undue delay, confusion, and prejudice; cases differ significantly in posture and claims	Consolidation denied; risks outweigh benefits
Whether late-released NTSB Final Report justifies consolidation	Futrell lacked crucial evidence before NTSB report; only able to pursue full claims upon its release	Futrell had access to essential information well before report; any prejudice is self-inflicted by lack of diligence	Court finds plaintiff was not blindsided; dismissal and limitations justified
Remedy for alleged obstructive discovery conduct by defendants	Consolidation needed to cure prejudice caused by evasive depositions and discovery tactics	Procedural mechanisms (motions to compel, sanctions) were available and not properly used by Futrell	Consolidation is not cure for discovery disputes; Rule 37 is appropriate mechanism
Whether procedural fairness requires same timeline as state court cases	Denial of consolidation would prejudice Futrell, as state court plaintiffs have more time to explore new evidence	Federal schedule must be adhered to; Futrell chose federal forum	Scheduling differences are not grounds for consolidation

R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Haver, 171 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1999) (district courts have broad discretion to consolidate related cases under Rule 42(a))
Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186 (4th Cir. 1982) (court must weigh risk of confusion and delay against efficiency gained by consolidation)
Kensington Associates v. West, 362 S.E.2d 900 (Va. 1987) (scope-of-employment standard for respondeat superior)