Aleut Enterprise, LLC v. Adak Seafood, LLC
ORDER Denying 77 Motion to Sever at Docket 77 and Motion to Expedite at Docket 78 . (Jan, Chambers Staff)
Aleut Enterprise, LLC v. Adak Seafood, LLC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ALEUT ENTERPRISE, LLC, an Alaska Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, vs. ADAK SEAFOOD, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, and INDEPENDENCE BANK, a Rhode Island Banking Institution, Intervenor, vs. ALEUTIAN SPRAY FISHERIES, INC., a Washington corporation; PACIFIC PELAGIC GROUP, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; JOHN YOUNG, an individual; and TRIDENT SEAFOODS CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Third-Party Defendants. ORDER DENYING INDEPENDENCE BANK'S MOTION TO SEVER AND MOTION FOR EXPEDITED TRIAL Case No. 3:10-cv-0017-RRB
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER AND EXPEDITE TRIAL - 1 3:10-CV-0017-RRB
INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Intervenor Independence Bank
("Independence") with a Motion to Sever at Docket 77 and a Motion For Expedited Trial Assignment at Docket 78. Independence contends that it is appropriate to sever Independence's claims against Aleut in furtherance of judicial economy and efficiency.1 Additionally,
Independence requests that its claims against Aleut be tried in an expedited fashion."2 Both Aleut and Adak Seafood, L.L.C. ("Adak") Aleut argues that
oppose at Dockets 94 and 95, respectively.
severance of Independence's claims against Aleut "would reduce judicial efficiency by requiring separate trials of the same issue and would raise the risk of inconsistent results."3 Adak concurs
with Aleut on this point, stating that "This is an issue that should be decided once, not twice."4 Because separating Independence's claims would not promote convenience, avoid prejudicing a party to the action, nor expedite and economize the current litigation, the separation of such claims from the body of the current case is not appropriate.
1 2 3 4
Docket 77 at 3. Docket 78 at 4. Docket 94 at 3. Docket 95 at 1.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER AND EXPEDITE TRIAL - 2 3:10-CV-0017-RRB
Consequently, Independence's Motion For Expedited Trial Assignment at Docket 78 is rendered moot and is likewise DENIED.5 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Civil Procedure Rule 42(b) reads, in relevant part, "a trial judge has the right within his discretion to order separate trials in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy."6 III. DISCUSSION Determining the validity of the Adak Island Fish Processing Plant lease agreement separately from the current Forcible Entry and Detainer ("FED") litigation would be a duplication of this Court's efforts. Independence argues that having a separate trial would benefit not just the judiciary, but potentially all of the parties because discovery of the relevant facts is complete.7 The request for a
declaration by this Court "that the ADAK-[Aleut] lease is a legally valid, binding and enforceable agreement by and between [Adak] and
For the factual background concerning claims, the Court adopts Docket 45 at 2-6.
Stoddard v. Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc., 513 F.Supp. 314, 327 (C.D.Cal. 1980); In Re Paris Air Crash of March 3, 1974, 69 F.R.D. 310, 314 (C.D.Cal. 1975).
Docket 77 at 4.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER AND EXPEDITE TRIAL - 3 3:10-CV-0017-RRB
[Aleut] until such time as [Adak] repays the Notes, in full, and the Security Agreements, and related loan documents are discharged" is the central issue among all of the parties' claims and defenses in the current controversy.8 As such, it cannot be separated from
the body of the present action. The resolution of the validity of the Lease as between Adak and Aleut in a separate trial would render moot the current FED action. It would be a duplication of judicial resources for this
Court to resolve the validity issue once, in the present case, and then again in another trial. Therefore, in the interest of
judicial efficiency and economy, the Court refuses to separate Independence's claims against Aleut from the body of the present case. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Independence Bank's Motion to Sever at Docket 77 and Motion For Expedited Trial Assignment at Docket 78 are DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2010. S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Docket 59 at 16.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER AND EXPEDITE TRIAL - 4 3:10-CV-0017-RRB
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?