2001-01-26 Harley-Davidson Response - Minnesota Judicial Branch

there are multiple cases pending does not in itself create an automatic need for management by
one judge. This is a matter that should be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. Since this case has
advanced substantially without the benefit of one judge managing pretrial issues, where is the need
for consolidation? Petitioners have made no showing of such a need.
CONCLUSION
Petitioners’ motion should be denied. Judge Carolan’s ruling should not be subverted by
an “end run” motion. Consolidation would clearly be prejudicial to Twin Cities Harley-Davidson.
There is no evidence that these cases cannot be managed perfectly well as the individual claims
that they are. We urge the motion for consolidation be denied.
DATED: /’ w ) 2001
Respec’tfully submitted,
RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL, LLP
BY )&&JbLJy
Michael W. Unger (131416)
Michael M. Lafeber (242871)
Attorneys for Twin Cities Harley-Davidson
333 South Seventh Street
Suite 2000
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
(612) 340-8953
13
l -