Futrell v. WDTC, LLC, 4:24-cv-00115

Towanda R. Futrell brought two cases: Futrell I (concerning a 2022 tractor-trailer/party bus accident in which she was injured) and Futrell II (arising from the same incident but naming more defendants and alleging a broader fraudulent scheme).
Futrell sought to consolidate the two cases, arguing overlapping factual and legal issues, specifically around driver fatigue, falsified logbooks, and employer liability.
Futrell I primarily involved negligence and respondeat superior claims against the driver (Cramer) and trucking companies (Triton, WDTC, AV Leasing); discovery was complete, and pretrial matters largely resolved.
Futrell II added ten new defendants and alleged a complex fraudulent scheme to evade trucker drive-time rules, including claims against company executives and parent companies.
All defendants opposed consolidation, raising concerns about prejudice, confusion, and delay due to the differences in parties, claims, and procedural posture.
The court denied consolidation, finding that any prejudice to Futrell resulted from her own delays or prior strategy and that differences between the cases outweighed potential judicial efficiency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Common questions of law/fact exist	Cases share central facts and questions (accident details, falsified logs)	Differences in claims, parties, and factual scope predominate	Consolidation permissible but not required; discretion not exercised
Plaintiff prejudice if not consolidated	Would be prejudiced by inability to pursue new evidence and claims	Plaintiff's own delays and litigation choices caused any prejudice	Plaintiff not entitled to relief from own omissions; no consolidation
Defendants’ discovery conduct supports consolidation	Defendants obstructed discovery, covering up fraud	Discovery sanctions, not consolidation, proper remedy for such problems	Alternative remedies (motions to compel, sanctions) exist; no basis for consolidation
Efficiency and judicial economy	Consolidation would save time/resources and avoid inconsistent results	Consolidation risks significant delay, confusion, and prejudice, especially with new/different claims	Delay and prejudice to defendants outweigh any modest efficiency; requests denied

R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Haver, 171 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1999) (district courts have broad discretion under Rule 42(a) to consolidate if it facilitates administration of justice)
Arnold v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186 (4th Cir. 1982) (enumerates factors courts must consider when deciding consolidation, including prejudice, confusion, judicial resources, and delay)
Kensington Associates v. West, 362 S.E.2d 900 (Va. 1987) (outlines Virginia law on respondeat superior; relevant to employment liability in negligence cases)