Craig v. Target Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION BRIAN CRAIG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No: 2:23-cv-599-JLB-KCD TARGET CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. / ORDER Before the Court are the following related cases against Target Corporation and its Board of Directors, which allege violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934: (1) Craig v. Target Corporation et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00599-JLB-KCD (“Craig”); (2) City of Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund v. Target Corporation et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00085-JLB-KCD (“Riviera Beach”); (3) Kaur v. Cornell et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00043-JLB-KCD (“Kaur”); (4) McCollum v. Target Corporation et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00021-JLB-KCD (“McCollum”); (5) Murphy v. Cornell et al., 2:25-cv-00062-JLB-KCD (“Murphy”); and (6) State Board of Administration of Florida v. Target Corporation et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00135-JLB-KCD (“SBA”). Pending in Craig is a motion for oral argument to consolidate that case with Riviera Beach and SBA. (Craig, Docs. 116 & 119). In Riviera Beach, there are two (2) motions to consolidate pending (Riviera Beach, Docs. 41 & 42) and corresponding motions for oral argument (id., Docs. 48 & 49). The motions in Riviera Beach request that the case be consolidated with Craig and SBA, or, with SBA alone. (Id., Doc. 41 at 5 & Doc. 42 at 10–12). Pending in Kaur is a motion to consolidate that case with McCollum and Murphy. (Kaur, Doc. 26). In McCollum, there is a motion to consolidate that case with Kaur and Murphy. (McCollum, Doc. 29). Pending in Murphy is a motion to consolidate that case with Kaur and McCollum. (Murphy, Doc. 5). In SBA, there are two (2) notices to advise the Court that motions to consolidate have been filed in Riviera Beach. (SBA, Docs. 25 & 26 (citing Riviera Beach, Docs. 41 & 42)). The exhibit attached to the first notice explains that SBA, Riviera Beach, and Craig should be consolidated. (id., Doc. 25-1 at 5). The exhibit attached to the second notice explains that Riviera Beach and SBA should be consolidated. (id., Doc. 26-1 at 6). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, a Court may consolidate related actions if those actions involve common questions of law or fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Rule 42(a) “codifies a district court’s inherent managerial power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, counsel, and for litigants.” Young v. City of Augusta, 59 F.3d 1160, 1168 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Rule “vests a purely discretionary power in the district court.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S. 59, 77 (2018) (“District courts enjoy substantial discretion in deciding whether and to what extent to consolidate cases.”). The Eleventh Circuit has encouraged district courts to “make good use of Rule 42(a) ... in order to expedite the trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion.” Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted and internal quotations omitted). In the interests of judicial economy and for the purposes of consolidation only, the Court requests all parties’ positions as to the consolidation of all six (6) of the above cases. The Court is mindful that some pending motions include requests to name a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The Court will reserve ruling on that relief until such time that it resolves the requests to consolidate the abovementioned cases. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS all named parties in THIS case (Craig, Case No. 2:23-cv-599-JLB-KCD) to file a notice in Craig, on or before June 13, 2025, indicating whether the parties oppose the consolidation of all cases. Ifa party opposes the consolidation of all cases, that party must provide an explanation. Additionally, if they have not already done so, the parties are DIRECTED to file a notice and a copy of their respective motions to consolidate in the other actions enumerated above per Local Rule 1.07(b) and file an updated notice of related actions. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on June 4, 2025. i 7 F Lf LO Pp ff “te. a & lhe, JOHN L. BADALAMENTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE