Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02087/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02087-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The docket numbers used by the Court in the remainder of this Order will

be those from CV 06-1894.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sentry Insurance,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

Heidelberg USA, Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

AND RELATED CASES.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 06-1894-PHX-SMM

CV 06-2087-PHX-SMM

ORDER

 

Pending before the Court is a Joint Motion to Consolidate Cases (Dkt. 17 in CV 06-

1894; Dkt. 8 in CV 06-2087 ) filed by Larry J. Cohen, counsel for Brian Conlon and Ruth

Conlon, on behalf of the parties to both cases.1

 The parties moved to consolidate CV 06-

2087-PHX-SMM and CV 06-1894-SMM-PHX for the following limited purposes: (1)

Service of Complaints; (2) Discovery; and (3) Trial of Liability Issues. The parties also

indicate that they wish to "reserve the right to continue conferring about whether the trial

of damages issues should be consolidated." 

Case 2:06-cv-02087-SMM Document 10 Filed 12/13/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has

discretion to "make such orders concerning proceedings there as may tend to avoid

unnecessary costs or delay" when "actions involving a common question of law or fact

are pending before the court."

In the present case, the Court finds that consolidation is appropriate. The parties

state that the facts and circumstances from which these cases arise are identical. (Dkt. 17

at 2) Moreover, the parties state that the only difference between the cases is that the

Plaintiff in CV 06-2087 is party injured in the event giving rise to these claims while the

Plaintiff in CV 06-1894 is the insurance company that indemnified Plaintiff for his injury.

(Id.)

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING the Joint Motion to Consolidate Cases

(Dkt. 17). The Court will consolidate CV 06-2087-PHX-SMM and CV 06-1894-SMMPHX for the following limited purposes: (1) Service of Complaints; (2) Discovery; and

(3) Trial of Liability Issues. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a stipulated motion to

consolidate the trial of damages with this Court should they agree that consolidation is

desirable and appropriate under the Federal Rules. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this

Order to counsel of record in each of the following cases: CV 06-2087-PHX-SMM and

CV 06-1894-SMM-PHX.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02087-SMM Document 10 Filed 12/13/06 Page 2 of 2