Miller et al v. Security Life of Denver Insurance Company et al

Filing 154

Order by Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers Denying Motion to Sever (Dkt. No. 142). (ygrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2012)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 DARIUS AND DARA MILLER, Plaintiffs, 5 vs. 6 7 ORDER DENYING MOTION OF AVIVA LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY TO SEVER OR FOR SEPARATE TRIAL SECURITY LIFE OF DENVER INSURANCE COMPANY et al., 8 9 Case No.: 11-CV-01175 YGR Defendant(s). AND RELATED ACTIONS. 10 Third-Party Defendant Aviva Life and Annuity Company (“Aviva”) has filed a Motion to United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Sever or for a Separate Trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 211 & 42(b)2 arguing that due what it believes is 13 a contingency of ING America Equities Inc.’s reinsurance-based damages claims against Aviva, 14 judicial economy, and concerns of fairness and undue prejudice require severance or separate trials. 15 Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, the Court 16 hereby DENIES the Motion to Sever, or for Separate Trial.3 There is nothing unfair or potentially 17 prejudicial to Aviva to try all issues in one proceeding. Separate proceedings would duplicate 18 effort and could only waste the Court’s and parties’ resources. 19 This Order Terminates Dkt. No. 142. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Date: December 7, 2012 22 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rule 21, captioned “Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties,” provides, in full: “Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. 1 Rule 42(b) provides in pertinent part: “For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims or third-party claims.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). 2 3 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument.

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?