Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

RAJAGOPALAN v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, C15-5476 BHS (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20150903e12 Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE BENJAMIN H. SETTLE , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Alex Casiano, Donte Cheeks, 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 Cour
More

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Alex Casiano, Donte Cheeks, 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

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.

On June 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Fidelity and Platte River Insurance Company ("Platte") as sureties for Meracord asserting causes of action for (1) proceeds of surety bonds that Fidelity and Platte issued in several states across the nation, (2) bad faith claims, and (3) declaratory relief. C15-957, Dkt. 1.

On August 10, 2015, Plaintiffs and Anderson filed motions to consolidate these cases. C15-957, Dkt. 24; C15-5476, Dkt. 83. On August 24, 2015, Fidelity responded. C15-957, Dkt. 32. On August 28, 2015, Plaintiffs replied. Id., Dkt. 34.

II. DISCUSSION

"If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). "[C]onsolidation is within the broad discretion of the district court." In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987).

In this case, Fidelity opposes consolidation on the grounds that the Anderson action is duplicative and should be dismissed. Dkt. 32 at 4-5. "As a general rule, a federal suit may be dismissed `for reasons of wise judicial administration . . . whenever it is duplicative of a parallel action already pending in another federal court.'" See Foster v. Arcata Associates, 772 F.2d 1453, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Ridge Gold Standard Liquors v. Joseph E. Seagram, 572 F.Supp. 1210, 1213 (N.D. Ill. 1983) (citing Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)). "[G]enerally, a suit is duplicative if the `claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.'" Id. (quoting Ridge Gold, 572 F. Supp. at 1213 (citations omitted)). While Fidelity has a strong argument that the Anderson claim should be dismissed because it is identical to Plaintiffs' claim (compare C15-957, Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 126-132 with C15-5476, Dkt. 17, ¶¶ 124-132), the Court declines to grant affirmative relief based on arguments raised in a response brief. Moreover, there is plenty of time to dismiss the Anderson claim and the parties should meet and confer on this issue.

With regard to the merits of consolidation, the Court finds that the actions involve common, if not identical, questions of law and fact and consolidation would promote efficiency and conserve judicial resources. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs and Anderson's motions.

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs and Anderson's motions to consolidate (C15-957, Dkt. 24; C15-5476, Dkt. 83) are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to file this order in Cause No. C15-957BHS and Cause No. C15-5476BHS and then close Cause No. C15-5476BHS. No additional documents shall be filed in Cause No. C15-5476BHS, and all documents filed in the future regarding these matters are to be filed in Cause No. C15-957BHS.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer