Worthy Hotels Inc v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company

W.D. Washington

Worthy Hotels Inc v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company

DecidedNovember 10, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-01515

StatusUnknown

This text of Worthy Hotels Inc v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (Worthy Hotels Inc v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Worthy Hotels Inc v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 ) VITA COFFEE LLC, et al ) 9 ) CASE NO. 2:20-cv-01079-BJR Plaintiffs, ) 10 ) ORDER ON CONSOLIDATION v. ) 11 ) FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE ) 12 COMPANY, ) ) 13 Defendant. ) 14

15 On November 11, 2020, the Court conducted a case management conference to discuss 16 possible consolidation of this and other like matters involving claims for business insurance 17 coverage resulting from the COVID 19 pandemic. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits 18 courts to consolidate “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact.” 19 FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). This rule affords “broad discretion” to consolidate cases pending in the same 20 district, either upon motion by a party or sua sponte. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 21 22 (9th Cir. 1987). Courts consider a number of factors in analyzing the appropriateness of 23 consolidation, including judicial economy, whether consolidation would expedite resolution of the 24 case, whether separate cases may yield inconsistent results, and the potential prejudice to a party 25 opposing consolidation. See 8 Moore’s Federal Practice—Civil § 42.10[4-5] (2020). 1 Based on the case management conference and the agreement of the parties, the Court

7 concludes that consolidation according to insurance group will best serve judicial economy in 3 || resolving the common issues presented by these cases. As such, the Court hereby ORDERS that 4 ||the cases involving the insurance group Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company be consolidated. 5 || These cases include Vita Coffee LLC v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (20-cv-1079); ES 6 Restaurant Group Inc v Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (20-cv-1193); and Worthy Hotels Inc et al v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (20-cv-1515), which shall be consolidated under case number 20-cv-01079 as the first filed case. The Clerk of the Court is hereby notified of this

10 consolidation. 11 12 DATED this 10th day of November, 2020. 13

15 BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 ) VITA COFFEE LLC, et al ) 9 ) CASE NO. 2:20-cv-01079-BJR Plaintiffs, ) 10 ) ORDER ON CONSOLIDATION v. ) 11 ) FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE ) 12 COMPANY, ) ) 13 Defendant. ) 14

15 On November 11, 2020, the Court conducted a case management conference to discuss 16 possible consolidation of this and other like matters involving claims for business insurance 17 coverage resulting from the COVID 19 pandemic. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits 18 courts to consolidate “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact.” 19 FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). This rule affords “broad discretion” to consolidate cases pending in the same 20 district, either upon motion by a party or sua sponte. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 21 22 (9th Cir. 1987). Courts consider a number of factors in analyzing the appropriateness of 23 consolidation, including judicial economy, whether consolidation would expedite resolution of the 24 case, whether separate cases may yield inconsistent results, and the potential prejudice to a party 25 opposing consolidation. See 8 Moore’s Federal Practice—Civil § 42.10[4-5] (2020). 1 Based on the case management conference and the agreement of the parties, the Court

7 concludes that consolidation according to insurance group will best serve judicial economy in 3 || resolving the common issues presented by these cases. As such, the Court hereby ORDERS that 4 ||the cases involving the insurance group Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company be consolidated. 5 || These cases include Vita Coffee LLC v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (20-cv-1079); ES 6 Restaurant Group Inc v Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (20-cv-1193); and Worthy Hotels Inc et al v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (20-cv-1515), which shall be consolidated under case number 20-cv-01079 as the first filed case. The Clerk of the Court is hereby notified of this

10 consolidation. 11 12 DATED this 10th day of November, 2020. 13

15 BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

In Re Adams Apple, Inc., Debtor. Robert C. Burchinal, Donald G. Ott, Meton G. Raine, Karen O. Raine, John Ruud, Richard H. Mason, Phyllis Mason, Richard Floren, Rachel Floren, Kenneth R. Irwin, Sharon Irwin, Richard J. Willsey and Cheri Ann Willsey, Plaintiffs v. Central Washington Bank, Bank of California v. Central Washington Bank

829 F.2d 1484 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Worthy Hotels Inc v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worthy-hotels-inc-v-firemans-fund-insurance-company-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack