NorthStar Gas Ventures v. Dernick Do not docket in this case. Case is consolidated under 4:17cv1230., 4:17-cv-01266

Two nearly identical lawsuits filed in the Southern District of Texas: Russell v. Dernicks (4:17-CV-01230) and Northstar v. Dernicks (4:17-CV-01266), each alleging the Dernicks breached promissory notes/agreement obligations by failing to pay.
Both cases involve the same defendants (Stephen H. Dernick and David D. Dernick) and substantially similar operative documents (nearly identical notes and related agreements).
Procedurally, the two cases were assigned to different judges, had different scheduling orders, and both plaintiffs filed near-identical summary judgment motions; defendants filed near-identical responses and cross-motions.
The Dernicks moved to consolidate the two actions; Russell supported consolidation, Northstar opposed consolidation and sought additional discovery time.
Court evaluated consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and the relevant Fifth Circuit factors (common questions, parties, risk of prejudice, judicial economy, and stage of proceedings).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the two actions should be consolidated	Northstar: oppose consolidation — not a necessary party; discovery deadline passed; consolidation could enable asset depletion. Russell: supports consolidation for efficiency.	Dernicks: consolidate — common defendant, common facts and law, overlapping motions and discovery, consolidation conserves resources.	Granted. Cases consolidated under 4:17-CV-01230.
Whether consolidation would cause prejudice or confusion	Northstar: consolidation risks delay and asset depletion; scheduling differences matter.	Dernicks: no risk of confusion; summary judgment motions should resolve issues quickly.	Court found no undue prejudice or confusion; efficiencies outweigh asserted harms.
Effect on existing scheduling orders and discovery requests	Northstar: argued scheduling/deadline concerns weigh against consolidation.	Dernicks: consolidation appropriate; scheduling orders can be adjusted.	Court vacated existing scheduling orders pending resolution of summary judgment motions; Northstar’s extension motion denied as moot.
Whether consolidation requires one plaintiff to be a "necessary" party to the other suit	Northstar: argued consolidation inappropriate because it is not a necessary party.	Dernicks: consolidation permissible under Rule 42(a) without necessity requirement.	Court rejected necessity requirement; consolidation may proceed despite Northstar not being a necessary party.

Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758 (5th Cir. 1989) (district court has wide discretion to consolidate cases that share common questions of law or fact)
Frazier v. Garrison I.S.D., 980 F.2d 1514 (5th Cir. 1993) (consolidation does not merge suits or change parties' rights)
McKenzie v. United States, 678 F.2d 571 (5th Cir. 1982) (consolidation does not cause two actions to merge into one)
Miller v. U.S. Postal Serv., 729 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1984) (consolidated cases retain separate identities and require separate judgments)
In re Air Crash Disaster at Fla. Everglades on Dec. 19, 1972, 549 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1977) (court may order consolidation over parties' objections when appropriate)