Fox v. Safe Security, Inc

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION JOAN FOX PLAINTIFF VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:25-cv-174-MPM-JMV SAFE SECURITY, INC and JUDGE VINCE MARASCALCO DEFENDANTS And FREDRICK L. TIDWELL, SR. PLAINTIFF VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:25-cv-175-MPM-DAS SAFE SECURITY, INC and JUDGE VINCE MARASCALCO DEFENDANTS And FREDRICK L. TIDWELL, SR. PLAINTIFF VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:25-cv-176-MPM-JMV ALBERT C. BRITT DEFENDANT And FREDRICK L. TIDWELL, SR. PLAINTIFF VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:25-cv-177-DMB-JMV DAVID DAIGNEAULT DEFENDANT ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION These cases are before the Court sua sponte for consolidation of the above cases. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the court may consolidate actions before it which involve common questions of law or fact. In the Fifth Circuit, “district judges have been ‘urged to make good use of Rule 42(a) in order to expedite trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion,’” even where consolidation is opposed by the parties. In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on December 29, 1972, 549 F.2d 1006, 1013 (5th Cir. 1977) (quoting Gentry v. Smith, 487 F.2d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 1973)). Courts consider five factors in determining whether consolidation is appropriate: (1) whether the actions are pending in the same court; (2) whether there are common parties; (3) whether there are common questions of law or fact; (4) whether there is risk of prejudice or confusion versus a risk of inconsistent adjudications if the cases are tried separately; and (5) whether consolidation will promote judicial economy. JFP Services, L.L.C. v. Torans, No. SA-17-CV-00210-FB, 2017 WL 9362704, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2017) (citing Frazier v. Garrison I.S.D., 980 F.2d 1514, 1531 (5th Cir. 1993) and Parker v. Hyperdynamics Corp., 126 F.Supp.3d 830, 835 (S.D. Tex. 2015)). It appears that all five factors favor consolidation in this instance. The Court, having considered the applicable law, finds that in light of the relatedness of the cases, all four cases should be consolidated in all respects, with case number 4:25-cv-174- MPM-JMV being the lead case. The Court also finds it appropriate to direct the Clerk to administratively close the following cases: 4:25-cv-175-MPM-DAS, 4:25-cv-176-MPM-JMV, and 4:25-cv-177-DMB-JMV. The lead case shall have the following case style: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION JOAN FOX and FREDRICK L. TIDWELL, SR. PLAINTIFF VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:25-cv-174-MPM-JMV SAFE SECURITY, INC, JUDGE VINCE MARASCALCO, ALBERT C. BRITT, and DAVID DAIGNEAULT DEFENDANTS Lastly, the Clerk of Court is also directed to copy over the following pleadings from the closed cases to the lead case: • 4:25-cv-175-MPM-DAS: o [Doc. 1] COMPLAINT, Jury Demand, filed by Fredrick L. Tidwell, Sr. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) o [Doc. 2] MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis by Fredrick L. Tidwell, Sr. o [Doc. 4] Summons Issued as to Safe Security, Inc. Returned to plaintiff for service. • 4:25-cv-176-MPM-JMV: o [Doc. 1] COMPLAINT, Jury Demand, filed by Fredrick L. Tidwell, Sr. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) o [Doc. 2] MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis by Fredrick L. Tidwell, Sr. o [Doc. 4] Summons Issued as to Albert C. Britt. Returned to plaintiff for service. • 4:25-cv-177-DMB-JMV: o [Doc. 1] COMPLAINT, Jury Demand, filed by Fredrick L. Tidwell, Sr. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) o [Doc. 2] MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis by Fredrick L. Tidwell, Sr. o [Doc. 4] Summons Issued as to David Daigneault. Returned to plaintiff for service. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED these cases are hereby consolidated. Plaintiffs are directed that any future filings shall be made only in the lead case of 4:25-cv-174-MPM-JMV. SO ORDERED this the 4th day of November, 2025. /s/ Jane M. Virden UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE