Blackhawk Engineering Inc. v. Essex Insurance Company et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 17 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Essex Insurance Company. The Court orders the parties to make all future filings in 11-884-JPG/SCW using the consolidated caption. Nothing further shall be filed in 11-1054-JPG/SCW. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/2/2012. (dka, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 11-cv-884-JPG-SCW
BLACKHAWK ENGINEERING, INC.,
MARIA GARZA, individually, as
Administratrix of the Estate of Armando
Garza, and as next friend of YESENIA
GARZA, and LIZETTE GARZA,
BLACKHAWK ENGINEERING, INC.,
Case No. 11-cv-1054-JPG-SCW
ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY and
WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Essex Insurance Company’s unopposed motions
to consolidate Essex Insurance Company v. Blackhawk Engineering, Inc., No. 11-cv-884-JPGSCW, with Blackhawk Engineering, Inc. v. Essex Insurance Company, No. 11-cv-1054-JPGSCW (No. 11-cv-884-JPG-SCW, Doc. 26; No. 11-cv-1054-JPG-SCW, Doc. 17), pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). Rule 42(a) allows the Court discretion to consolidate
cases that involve a common question of law or fact.
It appears that these two actions seek opposing declarations of coverage or non-coverage
by the same insurance policy. Accordingly, they clearly involve common questions of law and
fact, and the Court believes they are appropriate for consolidation. The Court therefore
GRANTS the motions (No. 11-cv-884-JPG-SCW, Doc. 26; No. 11-cv-1054-JPG-SCW, Doc.
17) and CONSOLIDATES Essex Insurance Company v. Blackhawk Engineering, Inc., No. 11cv-884-JPG-SCW, with Blackhawk Engineering, Inc. v. Essex Insurance Company, No. 11-cv1054-JPG-SCW, for all further proceedings. The Court further ORDERS the parties to make all
future filings in Essex Insurance Company v. Blackhawk Engineering, Inc., No. 11-cv-884-JPGSCW, using the consolidated caption; nothing further shall be filed in Blackhawk Engineering,
Inc. v. Essex Insurance Company, No. 11-cv-1054-JPG-SCW.
This consolidation further moots Blackhawk’s motion to stay or dismiss these
proceedings under Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Company, 316 U.S. 491 (1942) (Doc. 10).
Brillhart held that a federal court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a declaratory
judgment claim when another proceeding in state court would fully adjudicate all the matters in
controversy in that claim. Brillhart, 316 U.S. at 494-95. The state proceeding to which
Blackhawk refers in its motion is the case that was removed to federal court as Blackhawk
Engineering, Inc. v. Essex Insurance Company, No. 11-cv-1054-JPG-SCW, and that is now
consolidated with lead case Essex Insurance Company v. Blackhawk Engineering, Inc., No. 11cv-884-JPG-SCW. Thus, there is no longer any state proceeding upon which to base abstention
under Brillhart. Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot Blackhawk’s motion to stay or
dismiss (Doc. 10) and motion for a hearing on that motion (Doc. 12).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 2, 2012
s./ J. Phil Gilbert____
J. PHIL GILBERT
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?