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

were heard and considered in Dakota County by Judge Robert Carolan. Judge Carolan concluded
that each claim was separate and raised issues of oral misrepresentation with no evidence of any
written misrepresentation. Judge Carolan concluded that consolidation was improper and would be
prejudicial to Twin Cities Harley-Davidson. (Friederichs Aff., Ex. E, p. 4.)
In the meantime, Twin Cities Harley-Davidson has completed all but one of the petitioners’
depositions and responded to written discovery. Petitioners have not made a single discovery
motion. Two petitioners, Bullis and Bruggentheis, have agreed to dismiss their claims. A suit has
since been commenced against Craig Smith. This leaves 22 declaratory judgment actions pending.
*-
Nearly half are in Hennepin County and assigned to one judge already. (Unger Aff.)
LEGAL AN&YSIS
I. PETITIONERS’ MOTION IS AN END RUN AROUND APPELLATE RULES AND
PROCEDURES AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DENIED
The arguments for consolidation of the various claims was made and decided by Judge
Carolan. Judge Carolan ruled, pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.P., Rule 42.02, that prejudice to the
defendant outweighed the interests of economy and dictated that the claims were best treated
individually. The court stated:
Whether to consolidate cases rests within the discretion of the trial
court. Fitzer v. Bloom, 253 N.W.2d 395,401-402 (Minn. 1997).
The court “must balance convenience against the possibility of
prejudice.” Schacter v. Richter, 271 Minn. 87,92-93, 135 N.W.2d
66,70 (1965). The defendant claims that extreme prejudice will
occur if plaintiffs are allowed to maintain this action in its
consolidated form. Defendants allege and plaintiffs do not disagree
that the actions giving rise to this lawsuit involve oral
representations made over a period of seven years, by various I%
salespersons, at two different business locations of the defendant, to
at least 25 different individual plaintiffs. Additionally, the damages
alleged in the complaint vary in both nature and actual dollar value
depending upon which plaintiff is being addressed. The court finds
that the consolidation of these claims was improper and prejudicial
4