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)

Download PDF
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?