Mainhouse Homeowners Association v. Allstate Insurance Company et al
Filing
41
ORDER to Consolidate by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. The Court hereby ORDERS that the following cases shall be consolidated: C16-1457-JCC and C17-0461-JCC. All future filings shall bear the caption and case number of the first-filed case, Mainhouse Homeowners Association v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., C16-1457-JCC. (SWT)
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
MAINHOUSE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION,
10
CASE NO. C16-1457-JCC
ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
13
14
Defendants.
15
16
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. There are two cases pending before this
17
Court, and both arise out of the same insurance policy dispute. See Mainhouse Homeowners
18
Association v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., C16-1457-JCC; Mainhouse Homeowners
19
Association v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, et al., C17-0461-JCC. The only difference
20
between the two cases is that the latter case, C17-0461-JCC, alleges additional claims against
21
Defendant State Farm. Given the similarity in issues and facts, the latter case was transferred to
22
the undersigned judge, and the Court now considers whether consolidation is proper. 1
23
If multiple actions before the Court involve a common question of law or fact, the Court
24
1
25
26
It is within the Court’s authority to consider this question on its own motion. In re
Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[T]rial courts may consolidate cases
sua sponte.”); Yousefi v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1065 (C.D. Cal. 1999)
(“A district court presiding over the matters may order consolidation sua sponte.”).
ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
PAGE - 1
1
may consolidate the actions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). The Court has substantial discretion in
2
determining whether to consolidate actions. Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent.
3
Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). Once a common question of law or fact is
4
identified, the Court considers factors such as the interests of justice, expeditious results,
5
conservation of resources, avoiding inconsistent results, and the potential of prejudice. See 8
6
MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE – CIVIL § 42.10 at [4][a]-[5][d] (3d. ed. 1997).
7
Here, each case raises the same legal issues. The underlying facts are similar as well:
8
Plaintiff Mainhouse filed claims arising out of the same insurance policies against the same
9
insurance companies. Because of these common questions of law and fact, the Court finds that
10
consolidation would conserve resources, avoid inconsistent results, and otherwise serve the
11
interests of justice.
12
The Court hereby ORDERS that the following cases shall be consolidated: C16-1457-
13
JCC and C17-0461-JCC. All future filings shall bear the caption and case number of the first-
14
filed case, Mainhouse Homeowners Association v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., C16-
15
1457-JCC. The remaining case, C17-0461-JCC, shall be CLOSED, and any case management
16
deadlines set in that case are VACATED.
17
DATED this 25th day of May 2017.
A
18
19
20
John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
PAGE - 2
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?