1 2 3
4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CYMBIDIUM RESTORATION TRUST, CASE NO. C24-0025-KKE 8
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. CONSOLIDATE
10 AMERICAN HOMEOWNER PRESERVATION TRUST SERIES AHP 11 SERVICING, et al.,
12 Defendants.
AMERICAN HOMEOWNER 14 PRESERVATION TRUST SERIES AHP SERVICING, et al., 15
Counter-Plaintiffs, 16 v.
17 CYMBIDIUM RESTORATION TRUST,
18 Counter-Defendant.
20 VAK CAPITAL TRUST I,
21 Intervenor-Defendant/ Counterclaim and 22 Crossclaim Plaintiff, 23 24 1 v. 2 CYMBIDIUM RESTORATION TRUST, 3 Counter-Defendant, 4 and
5 AHP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., 6 Cross-Defendant. 7
8 AHP1 filed a motion to consolidate this case (hereinafter “the Cymbidium action”) with 9 another case pending in this Court, AHP Capital Management LLC v. Oak Harbor Capital LLC, 10 No. 25-0007-KKE (“the AHP Capital action”). Dkt. No. 115. According to AHP, the Cymbidium 11 action and the AHP Capital action should be consolidated to avoid litigating “the same issues with 12 the same witnesses and evidence” “in separate cases.” Id. at 1. Consolidation is opposed by the 13 plaintiff in the Cymbidium action, Cymbidium Restoration Trust. See Dkt. No. 24. Western 14 Alliance Bank, a defendant in the AHP Capital action, also opposes consolidation. See No. 25- 15 0007, Dkt. No. 76. Western Alliance also filed a motion to stay the AHP Capital action pending 16 resolution of the Cymbidium action. Id., Dkt. No. 75. 17 Because the Court finds that, at this time, the benefits of consolidation are outweighed by 18 the potential delay and prejudice. The Court will deny the motion to consolidate, without prejudice 19 to refiling at a later stage in the proceeding. 20
22 23 1 This order uses “AHP” to refer to Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs in this action: American Homeowner Preservation Trust Series AHP Servicing; AHP Capital Management, LLC; American Homeowner Preservation Series 2015A+; 24 and AHP Servicing, LLC. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Cymbidium filed this action in King County Superior Court in November 2023, bringing 3 claims for breach of contract and conversion. Dkt. No. 1-2. AHP removed the case to this Court
4 in January 2024. Dkt. No. 1. AHP filed a third-party complaint against some of the defendants in 5 the AHP Capital action, bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty, an accounting, violation of 6 12 U.S.C. § 2607, unjust enrichment, conversion, and tortious interference with a contract. Dkt. 7 No. 12. The Court set this action for trial in June 2025. Dkt. No. 39. The Court subsequently 8 dismissed that third-party complaint in June 2024, ruling that AHP’s claims against the Third- 9 Party Defendants were independent from the claims asserted by Cymbidium in the Cymbidium 10 action, and therefore could not serve as a foundation for impleader. Dkt. No. 59 at 6. 11 In September 2024, AHP filed the AHP Capital action in the U.S. District Court for the 12 Central District of California against multiple parties, including some of the same Third-Party
13 Defendants that had been listed in the (dismissed) third-party complaint in the Cymbidium action. 14 See No. 25-0007, Dkt. No. 1. That complaint listed some of the same claims raised in the 15 Cymbidium action, as well as multiple claims for civil RICO Act violations, fraud, and negligence. 16 Id. The parties to the AHP Capital action eventually agreed that the case should be transferred to 17 the Western District of Washington because it is related to the Cymbidium action. Id., Dkt. No. 18 56. The motion to transfer was granted and this case arrived in this Court in January 2025. Id., 19 Dkt. No. 59. There are now two motions to dismiss pending in the AHP Capital action, and 20 Western Alliance filed a motion to stay that action pending resolution of the Cymbidium action. 21 Id., Dkt. Nos. 74, 75, 93. The Court has not set a trial date or any pretrial deadlines in this matter. 22 See id., Dkt. No. 84 (granting the parties’ stipulated motion to extend the deadline to a file a joint
23 status report until after the motions to consolidate, stay, and/or dismiss are resolved). 24 1 AHP filed a motion to consolidate the Cymbidium action with the AHP Capital action. 2 Dkt. No. 115. After the Court granted AHP’s motion to continue the trial date in the Cymbidium 3 action from June 2025 to October 2025, the Court requested additional briefing from the parties
4 regarding consolidation. Dkt. No. 137. 5 After reviewing the parties’ briefing and supplemental briefing on the motion to 6 consolidate, the Court will deny the motion for the following reasons. 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 A. Legal Standards on a Motion to Consolidate 9 If two cases “involve a common question of law or fact,” a court may “consolidate the 10 actions” or “issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 11 “The district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same 12 district.” Investors Res. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Calif., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th
13 Cir. 1989). Even if two actions share common questions of law or fact, a court considering 14 consolidation must “weigh the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any 15 inconvenience, delay or expense that it would cause,” and may “consider factors such as disparate 16 trial dates or different stages of discovery as weighing against consolidation of the cases.” Single 17 Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (cleaned up). 18 B. The Court Finds That Consolidation Is Not Appropriate At This Time. 19 It is undisputed that the Cymbidium action and the AHP Capital action share common 20 questions of law or fact. See Dkt. No. 115 at 10, Dkt. No. 125 at 2, Dkt. No. 129 at 6–7, Dkt. No. 21 139 at 6. Nonetheless, the Court finds that consolidation at this time would not promote efficiency 22 because the cases are at different stages of trial preparedness, and consolidation would
23 significantly delay the Cymbidium action’s progression toward trial. See Ultimate Timing, L.L.C. 24 v. Simms, No. 2:08-CV-01632-MJP, 2010 WL 1881868, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 10, 2010) 1 (“Consolidation may be inappropriate where two cases have been proceeding on two vastly 2 different schedules to trial.”). The AHP Capital action lacks a case schedule and has multiple 3 motions to dismiss pending, whereas the Cymbidium action has been pending for more than a year
4 and is set for trial later this year. The Court is not persuaded that judicial economy would be 5 served by tying these two cases together at this point, although the Court may see it differently in 6 the future, depending on the outcome of the motions to dismiss in the AHP Capital action, the 7 progress of discovery in the Cymbidium action, and/or developments in other related cases. See 8 Dkt. No. 139 at 8 (discussing additional related cases not subject to the motion to consolidate). 9 Although the Court is aware that allowing these cases to proceed separately could 10 eventually result in duplicative discovery (Dkt. No. 139 at 7), some duplication may be inevitable 11 due to the sheer number of cases that the parties are currently litigating involving the same or 12 similar issues. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 133 at 4 n.3 (referencing a case pending in King County Superior
13 Court), Dkt. No. 139 at 6–8 (discussing other related federal cases).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3
4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CYMBIDIUM RESTORATION TRUST, CASE NO. C24-0025-KKE 8
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. CONSOLIDATE
10 AMERICAN HOMEOWNER PRESERVATION TRUST SERIES AHP 11 SERVICING, et al.,
12 Defendants.
AMERICAN HOMEOWNER 14 PRESERVATION TRUST SERIES AHP SERVICING, et al., 15
Counter-Plaintiffs, 16 v.
17 CYMBIDIUM RESTORATION TRUST,
18 Counter-Defendant.
20 VAK CAPITAL TRUST I,
21 Intervenor-Defendant/ Counterclaim and 22 Crossclaim Plaintiff, 23 24 1 v. 2 CYMBIDIUM RESTORATION TRUST, 3 Counter-Defendant, 4 and
5 AHP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., 6 Cross-Defendant. 7
8 AHP1 filed a motion to consolidate this case (hereinafter “the Cymbidium action”) with 9 another case pending in this Court, AHP Capital Management LLC v. Oak Harbor Capital LLC, 10 No. 25-0007-KKE (“the AHP Capital action”). Dkt. No. 115. According to AHP, the Cymbidium 11 action and the AHP Capital action should be consolidated to avoid litigating “the same issues with 12 the same witnesses and evidence” “in separate cases.” Id. at 1. Consolidation is opposed by the 13 plaintiff in the Cymbidium action, Cymbidium Restoration Trust. See Dkt. No. 24. Western 14 Alliance Bank, a defendant in the AHP Capital action, also opposes consolidation. See No. 25- 15 0007, Dkt. No. 76. Western Alliance also filed a motion to stay the AHP Capital action pending 16 resolution of the Cymbidium action. Id., Dkt. No. 75. 17 Because the Court finds that, at this time, the benefits of consolidation are outweighed by 18 the potential delay and prejudice. The Court will deny the motion to consolidate, without prejudice 19 to refiling at a later stage in the proceeding. 20
22 23 1 This order uses “AHP” to refer to Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs in this action: American Homeowner Preservation Trust Series AHP Servicing; AHP Capital Management, LLC; American Homeowner Preservation Series 2015A+; 24 and AHP Servicing, LLC. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Cymbidium filed this action in King County Superior Court in November 2023, bringing 3 claims for breach of contract and conversion. Dkt. No. 1-2. AHP removed the case to this Court
4 in January 2024. Dkt. No. 1. AHP filed a third-party complaint against some of the defendants in 5 the AHP Capital action, bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty, an accounting, violation of 6 12 U.S.C. § 2607, unjust enrichment, conversion, and tortious interference with a contract. Dkt. 7 No. 12. The Court set this action for trial in June 2025. Dkt. No. 39. The Court subsequently 8 dismissed that third-party complaint in June 2024, ruling that AHP’s claims against the Third- 9 Party Defendants were independent from the claims asserted by Cymbidium in the Cymbidium 10 action, and therefore could not serve as a foundation for impleader. Dkt. No. 59 at 6. 11 In September 2024, AHP filed the AHP Capital action in the U.S. District Court for the 12 Central District of California against multiple parties, including some of the same Third-Party
13 Defendants that had been listed in the (dismissed) third-party complaint in the Cymbidium action. 14 See No. 25-0007, Dkt. No. 1. That complaint listed some of the same claims raised in the 15 Cymbidium action, as well as multiple claims for civil RICO Act violations, fraud, and negligence. 16 Id. The parties to the AHP Capital action eventually agreed that the case should be transferred to 17 the Western District of Washington because it is related to the Cymbidium action. Id., Dkt. No. 18 56. The motion to transfer was granted and this case arrived in this Court in January 2025. Id., 19 Dkt. No. 59. There are now two motions to dismiss pending in the AHP Capital action, and 20 Western Alliance filed a motion to stay that action pending resolution of the Cymbidium action. 21 Id., Dkt. Nos. 74, 75, 93. The Court has not set a trial date or any pretrial deadlines in this matter. 22 See id., Dkt. No. 84 (granting the parties’ stipulated motion to extend the deadline to a file a joint
23 status report until after the motions to consolidate, stay, and/or dismiss are resolved). 24 1 AHP filed a motion to consolidate the Cymbidium action with the AHP Capital action. 2 Dkt. No. 115. After the Court granted AHP’s motion to continue the trial date in the Cymbidium 3 action from June 2025 to October 2025, the Court requested additional briefing from the parties
4 regarding consolidation. Dkt. No. 137. 5 After reviewing the parties’ briefing and supplemental briefing on the motion to 6 consolidate, the Court will deny the motion for the following reasons. 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 A. Legal Standards on a Motion to Consolidate 9 If two cases “involve a common question of law or fact,” a court may “consolidate the 10 actions” or “issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 11 “The district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same 12 district.” Investors Res. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Calif., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th
13 Cir. 1989). Even if two actions share common questions of law or fact, a court considering 14 consolidation must “weigh the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any 15 inconvenience, delay or expense that it would cause,” and may “consider factors such as disparate 16 trial dates or different stages of discovery as weighing against consolidation of the cases.” Single 17 Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (cleaned up). 18 B. The Court Finds That Consolidation Is Not Appropriate At This Time. 19 It is undisputed that the Cymbidium action and the AHP Capital action share common 20 questions of law or fact. See Dkt. No. 115 at 10, Dkt. No. 125 at 2, Dkt. No. 129 at 6–7, Dkt. No. 21 139 at 6. Nonetheless, the Court finds that consolidation at this time would not promote efficiency 22 because the cases are at different stages of trial preparedness, and consolidation would
23 significantly delay the Cymbidium action’s progression toward trial. See Ultimate Timing, L.L.C. 24 v. Simms, No. 2:08-CV-01632-MJP, 2010 WL 1881868, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 10, 2010) 1 (“Consolidation may be inappropriate where two cases have been proceeding on two vastly 2 different schedules to trial.”). The AHP Capital action lacks a case schedule and has multiple 3 motions to dismiss pending, whereas the Cymbidium action has been pending for more than a year
4 and is set for trial later this year. The Court is not persuaded that judicial economy would be 5 served by tying these two cases together at this point, although the Court may see it differently in 6 the future, depending on the outcome of the motions to dismiss in the AHP Capital action, the 7 progress of discovery in the Cymbidium action, and/or developments in other related cases. See 8 Dkt. No. 139 at 8 (discussing additional related cases not subject to the motion to consolidate). 9 Although the Court is aware that allowing these cases to proceed separately could 10 eventually result in duplicative discovery (Dkt. No. 139 at 7), some duplication may be inevitable 11 due to the sheer number of cases that the parties are currently litigating involving the same or 12 similar issues. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 133 at 4 n.3 (referencing a case pending in King County Superior
13 Court), Dkt. No. 139 at 6–8 (discussing other related federal cases). It is not clear to the Court that 14 duplication of effort could not be minimized by alternate means, such as coordination among the 15 parties and/or an eventual stay of the AHP Capital action. See, e.g., Taylor v. Amazon.com Servs. 16 LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01165-KES-BAM, 2025 WL 307469, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2025) (finding 17 that the savings of time and effort resulting from consolidation is outweighed by the delay that 18 would result from consolidation, because one case is eight years old and another “is in the earliest 19 stage of litigation”). 20 AHP requests that as an alternative to consolidation, the Court should continue the 21 Cymbidium action’s case schedule to allow it to run parallel to the AHP Capital action. Dkt. No. 22 129 at 9–10. The Court recently continued the Cymbidium action’s trial date and case schedule,
23 although not as far out as AHP requested. Dkt. No. 137. Although AHP believes that discovery 24 in the AHP Capital action will reveal evidence relevant to the Cymbidium action (Dkt. No. 129 at 1 10), such that their schedules should run in tandem, AHP’s argument is speculative at this point. 2 If the parties are unable to timely complete necessary discovery in this action, the Court can 3 consider another trial continuance at that time, and/or whether to consolidate or schedule the two
4 cases to run in parallel discovery tracks, but will not preemptively continue a trial date now on 5 speculative grounds. Accordingly, the Court will deny AHP’s motion to consolidate without 6 prejudice to refiling at a later stage in the proceedings. See, e.g., Denise S. v. Foreman, No. 2:22- 7 cv-09237-MEMF-PD, 2024 WL 2002217, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2024) (denying a motion to 8 consolidate “without prejudice to either party seeking any form of consolidation at a later stage 9 should the cases develop such that it appears proper to do so”). 10 III. CONCLUSION 11 For these reasons, the Court DENIES AHP’s motion to consolidate (Dkt. No. 115) without 12 prejudice.
13 In light of a scheduling conflict documented in the parties’ joint supplemental brief (Dkt. 14 No. 139 at 11), and the parties’ agreement that a short continuance of this action is warranted, the 15 Court finds good cause to VACATE the current trial date and unexpired pretrial deadlines (Dkt. 16 No. 138) and will issue a new case schedule in the Cymbidium action consistent with a trial date 17 of October 27, 2025. 18 Dated this 7th day of April, 2025. 19 A 20 Kymberly K. Evanson 21 United States District Judge
23 24