We represent a supplier of specialty ingredients and equipment to commercial kitchens throughout Gotham City, whom I will call “Mr. Terrific Ingenious Goods”. They sold goods to “Big Belly Pies”, who did not pay. The case itself was not particularly remarkable. Big Belly Pies ordered product. Mr. Terrific delivered. They did not pay. We filed suit, litigated the matter, and ultimately obtained a default Judgment. End of story, right? But I am sure you’re thinking to yourself “Holy monotony, that’s a mundane missive for this media!”

Ten months after entry of judgment, we received a Motion to Consolidate from Gotham Home Shopping Network, who had just commenced a separate action against Big Belly Pies for failure to make payments on commissions from sales. That case, unlike ours, was still in its early stages. Discovery had not been completed, additional defendants were being pursued, and there were clearly broader theories of liability being explored, including attempts to impose personal liability on individuals.

Again, none of this had anything to do with us. Our case was over. We had done the work, obtained the Judgment, and moved on to enforcement.

Counsel in the second action, Carter Vale, Esq., moved to consolidate their case with ours on the grounds that doing so would somehow create “economy of time and money” for the Court and the parties.

Now, I have been practicing in Gotham City for over twenty-five years, and I understand the concept of consolidation. Where there are common questions of law or fact, and where the cases are in similar procedural postures, consolidation can make sense.

This was not that.

This was an attempt to take a fully litigated case, already reduced to Judgment, and drop it back into an active litigation that had not even completed discovery. It would require us to reappear, participate in proceedings, incur additional costs, and effectively reinsert ourselves into a case that we were never part of to begin with.

All in the name of “efficiency.”

So, in the papers, I argued (and yep, except for the pseudonyms, verbatim):

“Mr. Terrific has baked the pie, put it in the oven, and took it out when it was done. Judgment entered. Big Belly seeks to now take the completed and baked pie, add new ingredients, and put the whole thing back in the oven. That is not how baking works. And it is not how litigation works either.”

Of course, the Court denied the motion. And in doing so, the Court quoted that language right back to me.

Now, I would like to tell you that the Court went further, and spoke at length about judicial economy, prejudice, and the distinctions between the two actions. And to be fair, those principles were all there, and they mattered.

But sometimes, the simplest explanation is the one that is fully baked.