Weifield Group Contracting, LLC v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company et al

Filing 59

ORDER granting Motion for Reconsideration, filed in case number 14-cv-02758-CMA-KMT. Case 14-cv-02758-CMA-KMT is consolidated with Case 14-cv-02976-CMA-KMT for all purposes. Case 14-cv-02976 is no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix an d, instead, is referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. All motions that were referred to Magistrate Judge Mix in case number 14-cv-2976 (Doc. ## 50 , 53 , and 57 ) are now referred to Magistrate Judge Tafoya. All future filings in these consolidated actions shall be filed only in the lead case (14-cv-2758). By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 10/29/2015. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02758-CMA-KMT (consolidated for all purposes with Civil Action
No. 14-cv-02976-CMA-KMT)
JHL INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company,
United States of America, for the use and benefit of,
d/b/a Platt Rogers Construction,
Plaintiff,
v.
MASS SERVICE & SUPPLY, LLC,
HARTLAND EXCAVATION, INC.,
HARTLAND/MASS JOINT VENTURE, LLC,
OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
HARTLAND EXCAVATION, INC.,
HARTLAND/MASS JOINT VENTURE, LLC,
MASS SERVICE & SUPPLY, LLC,
Counter Claimants,
v.
JHL INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC., a Colorado Limited Liability Company,
United States of America, for the use and benefit of,
d/b/a Platt Rogers Construction,
Counter Defendant,
v.
Weifield Group Contracting, LLC,
Consolidated Claimant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
DENYING COLSOLIDATION (DOC. # 44)

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s prior order denying Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate this case with case number
14-cv-2976-CMA-KMT. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is granted
and this case is consolidated with case number 14-cv-2976-CMA-KMT.
I.

BACKGROUND

Both cases proposed for consolidation arise out of a construction project
managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build a land vehicle fueling facility at
Fort Carson. Hartland/Mass Joint Venture, LLC (“Hartland/Mass”) was hired as the
prime contractor on the project. Hartland/Mass entered into several subcontract
agreements with JHL Industrial Services, LLC d/b/a Platt Rogers Construction (“Platt
Rogers”). Platt Rogers, in turn, entered into a subcontract agreement with Weifield
Group Contracting, LLC (“Weifield”) for certain electrical work. The present matter—
case number 14-cv-2758—involves a dispute between Hartland/Mass and Platt Rogers
over work that was (or should be been) completed on the project and the payment for
such work. Case number 14-cv-2976 involves a dispute between Platt Rogers and
Weifield over Platt Rogers’ alleged non-payment.
II.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), “[i]f actions before the court
involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any
or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other
orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The objective of
Rule 42 is “to give the court broad discretion to decide how cases on its docket are to
be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched with expedition and
economy while providing justice to the parties.” 9A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice &
2

Procedure § 2381 (3d ed. 2015). In the District of Colorado, the district judge assigned
the lowest numbered case decides the motion to consolidate and, if the motion is
granted, is reassigned the consolidated cases. D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1.
After reviewing the legal and factual issues raised in both cases, the Court
concludes that common questions of law and fact are present and such that
consolidation would be the most efficient manner of proceeding with both cases. 1 For
example, one of the factual issues alleged by Hartland/Mass in case number 14-cv2758 is that Weifield’s electrical work was defective and needed to be repaired. Based
on this allegation, Hartland/Mass argues that it was justified in withholding certain
payment from Platt Rogers. In turn, Platt Rogers asserts in case number 14-cv-2976
that it justifiably withheld payment from Weifield because it did not receive full payment
from Hartland/Mass. Therefore, the quality of Weifield’s work is a common question of
fact in both cases. This is just one example of the common legal and factual issues
present in both cases.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying
Consolidation (Doc. # 44) is GRANTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED Case 1:14-cv-02758-CMA-KMT is consolidated with Case
1:14-cv-02976-CMA-KMT for all purposes. It is

1

The Court notes that Chief Judge Marcia Krieger, who was initially assigned case
number 14-cv-2976, agrees that transfer and consolidation is the most efficient manner
of moving forward with these cases. On October 21, 2015, Judge Krieger entered an
order transferring case number 14-cv-2976 to this Court.
3

FURTHER ORDERED that Case 1:14-cv-02976 is no longer referred to
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix and, instead, is referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen
M. Tafoya. All motions that were referred to Magistrate Judge Mix in case number 14cv-2976 (Doc. ## 50, 53, and 57) are now referred to Magistrate Judge Tafoya. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that all future filings in these consolidated actions shall be
filed only in the lead case (14-cv-2758). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that all future filings in these consolidated actions shall be
captioned as set forth above.

DATED: October 29, 2015

BY THE COURT:

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

4