Anderson v. Meracord LLC et al

Filing 87

ORDER to Consolidate with CV15-957BHS by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. **This case is CLOSED. Do not file anything further in this case**. (MGC)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

AMRISH RAJAGOPALAN, MARIE
JOHNSON-PEREDO, ROBERT
HEWSON, DONTE CHEEKS,
DEBORAH HORTON, RICHARD
PIERCE, ERMA SUE CLYATT,
ROBERT JOYCE, AMY JOYCE,
ARTHUR FULLER, DAWN MEADE,
WAHAB EKUNSUMI, KAREN HEA,
and ALEX CASIANO on behalf of the
CLASS CERTIFIED BY THIS COURT’S
MAY 14, 2015 ORDER CERTIFYING A
CLASS IN RAJAGOPALAN ET AL v.
MERACORD, LLC,

14

CASE NO. C15-957 BHS
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS
TO CONSOLIDATE

Plaintiffs,

15

v.

16 FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY
OF MARYLAND, and PLATTE RIVER
17 INSURANCE COMPANY, as Sureties for
Meracord, LLC,
18
Defendants.
19
CHERYL ANDERSON, on behalf of
20 herself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff,

21
22

ORDER - 1

CASE NO. C15-5476 BHS

1

v.

2 MERACORD, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; FIDELITY AND
3 DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND,
as a surety for Meracord, LLC,
4
Defendants.
5
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Alex Casiano, Donte Cheeks,

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Erma Sue Clyatt, Wahab Ekunsumi, Arthur Fuller, Karen Hea, Robert Hewson, Deborah
Horton, Marie Johnson-Peredo, Amy Joyce, Robert Joyce, Dawn Meade, Richard Pierce,
and Amrish Rajagopalan’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion to consolidate (C15-957, Dkt. 24) and
Plaintiff Cheryl Anderson’s (“Anderson”) motion to consolidate (C15-5476, Dkt. 83).
The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the
motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motionS for the reasons stated
herein.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

On December 3, 2013, Anderson filed a complaint against Defendants Meracord,
LLC, (“Meracord”) and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland as surety for
Meracord (“Fidelity”) in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
C15-5476, Dkt. 1. On February 10, 2014, Anderson filed an amended class action
complaint against the same defendants asserting numerous causes of action including a
cause of action for the proceeds of a surety bond that Fidelity issued on behalf of
Meracord. Id., Dkt. 17. On July 9, 2015, the matter was transferred to this Court. Id.,
Dkt. 70.

ORDER - 2

1

On June 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Fidelity and

2 Platte River Insurance Company (“Platte”) as sureties for Meracord asserting causes of
3 action for (1) proceeds of surety bonds that Fidelity and Platte issued in several states
4 across the nation, (2) bad faith claims, and (3) declaratory relief. C15-957, Dkt. 1.
5

On August 10, 2015, Plaintiffs and Anderson filed motions to consolidate these

6 cases. C15-957, Dkt. 24; C15-5476, Dkt. 83. On August 24, 2015, Fidelity responded.
7 C15-957, Dkt. 32. On August 28, 2015, Plaintiffs replied. Id., Dkt. 34.
8
9

II. DISCUSSION
“If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court

10 may . . . consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). “[C]onsolidation is within the
11 broad discretion of the district court.” In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th
12 Cir. 1987).
13

In this case, Fidelity opposes consolidation on the grounds that the Anderson

14 action is duplicative and should be dismissed. Dkt. 32 at 4–5. “As a general rule, a
15 federal suit may be dismissed ‘for reasons of wise judicial administration . . . whenever it
16 is duplicative of a parallel action already pending in another federal court.’” See Foster
17 v. Arcata Associates, 772 F.2d 1453, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Ridge Gold Standard
18 Liquors v. Joseph E. Seagram, 572 F. Supp. 1210, 1213 (N.D. Ill. 1983) (citing Colorado
19 River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)).
20 “[G]enerally, a suit is duplicative if the ‘claims, parties, and available relief do not
21 significantly differ between the two actions.’” Id. (quoting Ridge Gold, 572 F. Supp. at
22 1213 (citations omitted)). While Fidelity has a strong argument that the Anderson claim

ORDER - 3

1 should be dismissed because it is identical to Plaintiffs’ claim (compare C15-957, Dkt. 1,
2 ¶¶ 126–132 with C15-5476, Dkt. 17, ¶¶ 124–132), the Court declines to grant affirmative
3 relief based on arguments raised in a response brief. Moreover, there is plenty of time to
4 dismiss the Anderson claim and the parties should meet and confer on this issue.
5

With regard to the merits of consolidation, the Court finds that the actions involve

6 common, if not identical, questions of law and fact and consolidation would promote
7 efficiency and conserve judicial resources. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs and
8 Anderson’s motions.
9

III. ORDER

10

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs and Anderson’s motions to

11 consolidate (C15-957, Dkt. 24; C15-5476, Dkt. 83) are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court
12 is directed to file this order in Cause No. C15-957BHS and Cause No. C15-5476BHS and
13 then close Cause No. C15-5476BHS. No additional documents shall be filed in Cause
14 No. C15-5476BHS, and all documents filed in the future regarding these matters are to be
15 filed in Cause No. C15-957BHS.
16

Dated this 2nd day of September, 2015.

17

A

18
19

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

20
21
22

ORDER - 4