Huebner v. American Family Connect Property and Casualty Insurance Company ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 ELIZABETH HUEBNER, Cause No. C22-0882RSL 8 Cause No. C22-987RSL Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION 10 TO CONSOLIDATE AMERICAN FAMLY CONNECT 11 PROPERTY AND CASUALTY 12 INSURANCE COMPANY, 13 Defendant. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s “Motion to Consolidate.” Dkt. # 13. 16 Plaintiff filed two separate lawsuits against her underinsured motorist (“UIM”) insurer. This 17 action, which was the first to be filed, seeks a determination of the UIM benefits to which 18 19 plaintiff is entitled under the policy. The second, C22-0987RSL, alleges that the insurer’s claims 20 handling violated the Insurance Fair Conduct Act, violated of the Unfair Claims Settlement Act, 21 violated the Consumer Protection Act, breached the contract of insurance, breached the duty of 22 23 good faith, and was negligent. 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits a court to consolidate actions that “involve 25 a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The existence of common issues, 26 27 while a prerequisite to consolidation, does not compel consolidation. Rather, “[t]he district court 28 1 has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district,” Investors 2 Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989), 3 and generally “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any 4 5 inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause,” Huene v. U.S., 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th 6 Cir. 1984), when making the determination. The moving party bears the burden of showing that 7 consolidation is appropriate. Oester v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., No. CV-19-04763-PHX-SPL, 8 9 2021 WL 614881, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 17, 2021); In re Nat’l Football Leagues Sunday Ticket 10 Antitrust Litig., No. ML1502668BROJEMX, 2016 WL 6768841, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 11 2016). 12 13 American Family Connect Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Amfam”) argues 14 that the two actions involve common questions fact for purposes of Rule 42(a) because (i) they 15 arise out of the same motor vehicle incident and (ii) the parties are identical. Dkt. # 13 at 3. 16 17 Those facts are not in dispute, however, and they do not give rise to a common issue that must 18 be determined in this litigation. Amfam also points out that the cases involve a common 19 question “regarding the amount Amfam was obligated to pay Huebner for UIM benefits under 20 21 the insurance contract.” Dkt. # 13 at 4. That issue is at the heart of both the above-captioned 22 case and the breach of contract claim asserted in C22-0987RSL. Although it may make sense to 23 stay the more complicated statutory claims until the amount owed under the policy is determined 23 25 (an issue which the Court declines to decide at this juncture), resolving the contractual issues of 26 breach and damages in a single suit will promote judicial efficiency and avoid unnecessary costs 27 28 1 and delay. Hicks v. Pastor, No. 319CV05674RJB-DWC, 2019 WL 5698803, at *4 (W.D. Wash. 2 Oct. 3, 2019), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Hicks v. Rembert, No. C19-5674 3 RJB, 2019 WL 5693914 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 4, 2019) (“[T]he Court could order consolidation of 4 5 the cases . . . in order to make discovery, dispositive motions and trial more efficient for the 6 parties and the Court.”). The Court therefore finds that consolidation is appropriate under Fed. 7 R. Civ. P. 42(a).1 8 9 10 For all of the foregoing reasons, the motion to consolidate filed in C22-0882RSL (Dkt. 11 # 13) is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that Huebner v. American Family Connect 12 13 Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. C22-0882RSL, and Huebner v. American 14 Family Connect Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. C22-0987RSL, are 15 consolidated for all purposes. Plaintiff shall file a consolidated amended complaint within 16 17 twenty-one days of the date of this Order. 18 All documents filed in the future regarding these matters, including the consolidated 19 amended complaint, shall be filed under cause number C22-0882RSL and bear the caption: 20 21 22 23 23 25 26 1 Although Amfam filed a motion to consolidate only in this cause number, the parties in the 27 related case, C22-0987RSL, are the same and therefore have notice of the motion. 28 1 _____________________________________ ) 2 ELIZABETH HUEBNER, ) No. C22-0882RSL 3 ) Plaintiff, ) 4 v. ) 5 ) AMERICAN FAMILY CONNECT ) 6 PROPERTY AND CASUALTY ) 7 INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) 8 Defendants. ) 9 _______________________________________) 10 11 The Clerk of Court is directed to close cause number C22-0987RSL. 12 13 DATED this 3rd day of October, 2022. 14 15 16 17 Robert S. Lasnik 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 23 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 2:22-cv-00882

Filed Date: 10/3/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/4/2024