Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. v. Asphalt Surfacing, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

AHTNA DESIGN-BUILD, INC., an Alaska Corporation, Case Nos. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK Plaintiff, 3:22-cv-00219-JMK Consolidated vs.

ASPHALT SURFACING, INC., a ORDER GRANTING JOINT California corporation; UNITED FIRE STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Bond CASES No. 54-197210,

Defendants.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE USE OF ASPHALT SURFACING, INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AHTNA DESIGN-BUILD, INC., an Alaska Corporation; GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP, an Ohio corporation Bond No. 3348912,

Defendants.

The parties in Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. v. Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK, and United States of America for the Use of Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. v. Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00219-JMK, submitted a joint stipulation,1 agreeing that (1) the two actions should be consolidated pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a); (2) the Scheduling and Planning Order at Docket 16 in Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK should be amended; and (3) Ahtna Design-Build’s (“ADB”) pending Motion to Strike2 is rendered moot by the proposed consolidation and modification of the Scheduling and Planning Order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) provides that courts may

consolidate actions if they involve a common question of law or fact. District courts enjoy “substantial discretion in deciding whether and to what extent to consolidate cases.”3 Further, Rule 16(b)(4) states that a Scheduling and Planning Order may be modified for good cause. Here, the Court finds that consolidation is appropriate because both actions involve an alleged breach of a subcontract entered into between Asphalt Surfacing, Inc., and ADB. Further, the Court finds that good cause exists to modify the Scheduling and

Planning Order at Docket 16 in Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK to accommodate the different stages of the two actions and to ensure that discovery is conducted efficiently in the consolidated action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. v. Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK, and United States of America for the Use of Asphalt Surfacing,

1 Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. v. Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK, Docket 45; United States of America for the Use of Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. v. Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00219-JMK, Docket 38. 2 Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. v. Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK, Docket 41. 3 Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1131 (2018). Inc. v. Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00219-JMK, are CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 42(a). 2. All future filings shall be filed under 3:21-cv-00228-JMK, using the above caption, unless the Court directs otherwise. 3. All parties shall comply with the Scheduling and Planning Order issued at Docket 16 in Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK. For good cause shown, that

Scheduling and Planning Order is modified as follows: Event Modified Deadline Identification of Expert Witnesses November 23, 2022 Supplemental Identification of Experts January 8, 2023 Rule 26 Expert Disclosures March 13, 2023 Final Discovery Witness List April 6, 2023 Close of Fact Discovery May 10, 2023 Discovery Motions to be filed by 14 days before the close of fact discovery Motions to Exclude Experts to be filed 30 days after the close by of expert discovery Dispositive Motions to be filed by 30 days after the close of fact discovery

4. With this consolidation and modification of the Scheduling and Planning Order, ADB’s Motion to Strike at Docket 41 in Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of November, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Joshua M. Kindred JOSHUA M. KINDRED United States District Judge