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)

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.