Scott v. CenturyLink Inc, 3:17-cv-01033

Plaintiff Benjamin Craig filed a federal securities class action under the Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78aa et seq.) against CenturyLink, Inc., CEO Glen F. Post III, and CFO R. Stewart Ewing, Jr., alleging materially false statements and omissions that inflated CenturyLink stock prices during March 1, 2013–June 16, 2017.
Craig seeks class certification, appointment as class representative, lead counsel, damages, fees, and injunctive relief.
Related suits (Scott; Thummeti) alleging substantially similar class claims against CenturyLink and certain officers were filed in the same district; one related suit (Barbree) was voluntarily dismissed.
Multiple movants (KBC Asset Management, the Police & Fire Retirement System of Detroit and Laborer’s Pension Trust Fund–Detroit, the State of Oregon, and Amalgamated Bank) moved to consolidate and pursue appointment as lead plaintiff.
The court evaluated consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and the Fifth Circuit’s five-factor framework (same court, common parties, common questions, risk of prejudice/inconsistent adjudications, and judicial economy).
The court found the factors favored consolidation and ordered Craig, Scott, and Thummeti consolidated with Craig designated as the lead case (No. 17-1005).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to consolidate the related securities actions	Movants argued the cases present substantially similar claims and should be consolidated for convenience and efficiency	Defendants did not advance a controlling argument against consolidation in the order; consolidation may be resisted but not sufficient to block it	Consolidation granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)
Whether cases involve common questions of law or fact	Craig and other movants argued the suits all allege fraud-based misstatements/omissions about CenturyLink’s compliance, raising common legal and factual issues	Any differences (e.g., an additional defendant in Scott) are not dispositive	Court held the cases share common questions of law and fact
Risk of prejudice, confusion, or inconsistent adjudications	Movants argued little risk of confusion among stockholder plaintiffs and substantial risk of inconsistent rulings if not consolidated	Potential claim-specific differences could create prejudice, but manageable via case management	Court found little prejudice or confusion and high risk of inconsistent adjudications if un-consolidated
Judicial economy and efficiency	Movants emphasized overlapping discovery, witnesses, and legal issues that make joint proceedings more economical	Opposing party concerns about efficiency were outweighed by administrative savings	Court concluded consolidation promotes judicial economy and eliminated unnecessary duplication

In re Air Crash Disaster at Fla. Everglades on Dec. 29, 1972, 549 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir.) (district courts should make good use of Rule 42(a) to expedite trial and avoid repetition)
Shafer v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 376 F.3d 386 (5th Cir.) (consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration)
St. Bernard Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Hosp. Serv. Ass'n of New Orleans, 712 F.2d 978 (5th Cir.) (consolidation is inappropriate if it would prejudice parties' rights)
Frazier v. Garrison I.S.D., 980 F.2d 1514 (5th Cir.) (set forth five-factor consolidation inquiry)
Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479 (U.S.) (consolidation justified for economy and administration)