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