Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02066/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02066-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of Insurance Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

VFORCE INC., et al.,

Defendant.

No. 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD

ORDER RELATING CASES, GRANTING 

DEFENDANT VFORCE INC.’S MOTION TO 

CONSOLIDATE, AND CONSOLIDATING 

CASES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRETRIAL 

DISCOVERY AND A JOINT TRIAL ON 

COMMON ISSUES

VFORCE INC.,

Cross-Claimant and 

Third-Party Plaintiff,

v.

CORTECH, LLC, et al.,

Cross-Defendant and 

Third-Party Defendants.

(Doc. No. 124)

AMAZING INSURANCE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL A. DIMANNO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-01349-DAD-CKD

(Doc. No. 104)

Case 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD Document 158 Filed 09/11/23 Page 1 of 6
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

ACCUIRE LLC, et al.,

Counter-Claimants and 

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v.

AMAZING INSURANCE, INC., et al.,

Counter-Defendant and 

Third-Party Defendants.

This matter is before the court on the pending motions to consolidate filed by defendant 

VForce, Inc. (“VForce”) on May 6, 2022 in two separate actions pending before the undersigned: 

Zurich American Ins. Co. of Illinois v. VForce Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD (“the Zurich

action”) (Doc. No. 124); and Amazing Ins., Inc. v. DiManno et al., 2:19-cv-01349-DAD-CKD

(“the Amazing action”) (Doc. No. 104). The pending motions in each action were taken under 

submission by the previously-assigned district judge on May 23, 2022.1 (Zurich Doc. No. 126; 

Amazing Doc. No. 108).2

Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the 

court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or 

all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to 

avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its discretion, the court “weighs the saving of 

time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it 

would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). 

1

 On August 25, 2022, these case were reassigned to the undersigned. (Zurich Doc. No. 132; 

Amazing Doc. No. 112.) The undersigned has endeavored to work through a backlog of inherited 

submitted motions in civil cases as quickly as possible since returning to the Sacramento 

courthouse one year ago.

2

 Defendant VForce filed notices of related cases in each action on January 22, 2021 (Zurich

Doc. No. 84; Amazing Doc. No. 79), but the previously-assigned district judge did not relate these

actions, perhaps because both cases were already assigned to the same district judge and 

magistrate judge. A review of the operative complaints, cross-claims, and counter-claims in the 

Zurich and Amazing actions reveal that these actions are in fact related under this court’s Local 

Rule 123(a). Accordingly, the undersigned will order that these actions be related and will direct 

the Clerk of the Court to update the dockets in both actions to reflect that they are related cases.

Case 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD Document 158 Filed 09/11/23 Page 2 of 6
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

3

Defendant VForce filed identical motions in both actions requesting that the court 

consolidate the Zurich and Amazing actions for the purposes of joint discovery and a joint trial on 

common issues. (Zurich Doc. No. 124; Amazing Doc. No. 110.) Specifically, defendant VForce 

argues that there are common issues regarding the “existence, scope, performance, and/or 

enforceability” of a document referred to as the “binding letter of understanding” and the 

guaranty (indemnity) provision it contains. (Zurich Doc. No. 124-1 at 5–6; Amazing Doc. No. 

110-1 at 5–6). Defendant VForce argues that conducting separate trials in these actions creates 

substantial risk of inconsistent jury findings and judgments, whereas consolidation for the 

purposes of trial on these common issues will be more efficient for the court and the parties and 

will not prejudice any party. (Id. at 6–8.) In addition, defendant VForce emphasizes that half of 

the parties involved in these two actions stipulate to the consolidation it has requested in its 

motions. (Id. at 8.) Defendant attached as an exhibit to its motions a stipulation signed by eight 

of the sixteen total parties involved in the two actions, including the plaintiff in the Zurich action 

(Zurich American Insurance Company of Illinois) and third-party defendants Alex Campos and 

Amazing Insurance, Inc.—all of whom are in an adversarial position relative to VForce. (Zurich

Doc. No. 124-2 at 18–21; Amazing Doc. No. 104-2 at 18–21.) That stipulation provides that the 

signing parties

stipulate to the consolidation of the Zurich Case and Amazing Case 

for the purposes of allowing common discovery going forward and

a single trial on the factual issues which are common to the two 

cases—the existence, scope, performance, and/or enforceability of 

the Guaranty and/or the Binding Letter of Understanding, as well as 

any additional matters that may cause Amazing Insurance and/or 

Alex Campos to be required to indemnify VForce for any additional 

amounts owed to Plaintiff under Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint.

(Id.)

On May 20, 2022, the eight non-stipulating parties, all of whom are represented by the 

same counsel, filed a response in opposition to the pending motions in both actions. (Zurich Doc. 

No. 125; Amazing Doc. No. 107.) In this opposition, the non-stipulating parties argue that there 

are no common issues of fact in the two actions and consolidation of these cases to be tried by a 

/////

Case 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD Document 158 Filed 09/11/23 Page 3 of 6
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

4

single jury will cause confusion because the two actions involve distinct and separate alleged civil 

conspiracies and incidents of fraud. (Id. at 3, 5.)3

On May 31, 2022, defendant VForce filed reply briefs in each action, emphasizing that 

“simply because the Amazing case may also adjudicate other issues of ownership of various 

companies, it does not alter the fact that the indemnity under the Binding Letter of Understanding 

and the Guaranty are fundamental to both the Zurich case and the Amazing case.” (Zurich Doc. 

No. 127 at 4; Amazing Doc. No. 109 at 4.) 

Having considered the parties’ respective arguments, the court finds that the abovecaptioned actions involve the same or similar parties, and common questions of fact or law, and 

that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs, duplication of proceedings, and the risk of 

inconsistent judgments. Thus, good cause exists to consolidate these cases for the purpose of 

discovery and for the purpose of trial on the common issues identified by VForce, and as 

stipulated to by the eight stipulating parties. Specifically, the common issues with regard to “the 

existence, scope, performance, and/or enforceability of the Guaranty and/or the Binding Letter of 

Understanding, as well as any additional matters that may cause Amazing Insurance and/or Alex 

Campos to be required to indemnify VForce for any additional amounts owed to Plaintiff under 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.” (Zurich Doc. No. 124-2 at 21; Amazing Doc. No. 104-2 at 

21.)

Accordingly, the court will grant defendant VForce’s motions to consolidate and will 

consolidate the Zurich and Amazing actions for the purpose of discovery and for the purpose of 

trial on the common issues identified herein.

/////

/////

3

 The non-stipulating parties also argue that “[c]onsolidating discovery will only give cause for 

further delay in both cases.” (Zurich Doc. No. 125 at 5; Amazing Doc. No. 107 at 5.) However, 

given the passage of time and the parties’ repeated requests to modify the scheduling orders 

issued in the two actions, fact discovery is currently set to close on September 15, 2023—the 

same date in both cases. Moreover, the expert discovery deadlines in the two cases are only 

approximately one month apart. Accordingly, it does not appear that consolidation of discovery 

will result in further delay.

Case 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD Document 158 Filed 09/11/23 Page 4 of 6
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

5

For the reasons set forth above:

1. The court hereby relates these two cases: Zurich American Ins. Co. of Illinois v. 

VForce Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD and Amazing Ins., Inc. v. DiManno 

et al., 2:19-cv-01349-DAD-CKD;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that the abovereferenced cases are related to each other;

3. Defendant VForce’s motion to consolidate (Doc. No. 124) filed in Zurich 

American Ins. Co. of Illinois v. VForce Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD is 

granted;

4. Defendant VForce’s motion to consolidate (Doc. No. 104) filed in Amazing Ins., 

Inc. v. DiManno et al., 2:19-cv-01349-DAD-CKD is granted;

5. The court orders that Zurich American Ins. Co. of Illinois v. VForce Inc., et al., 

2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD and Amazing Ins., Inc. v. DiManno et al., 2:19-cv01349-DAD-CKD are consolidated for the purposes of discovery and for trial on 

the common issues identified herein;

6. The scheduling order in the Zurich action is modified as follows to conform to the 

scheduling order in the Amazing action:

a. Expert disclosures shall be completed by 11/14/2023;

b. Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be completed by 12/14/2023;

c. Expert discovery shall be completed by 1/15/2024;

d. All motions, except for motions for continuances, temporary 

restraining orders or other emergency applications shall be filed no 

later than 2/29/2024 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge 

Drozd on a date not more than 60 days from the date the motion is 

filed and on a date that is consistent with District Judge Dale A. 

Drozd’s Standing Order;

/////

/////

Case 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD Document 158 Filed 09/11/23 Page 5 of 6
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

6

e. The Final Pretrial Conference currently set for 7/9/2024 is hereby 

reset to 8/13/2024 at 01:30 PM before District Judge Dale A. Drozd 

by Zoom;

f. The Jury Trial currently set for 9/9/2024 is hereby reset to 

10/16/2024 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (DAD) before District 

Judge Dale A. Drozd.

7. Unlike other instances of consolidation in which courts designate a lead case and 

member case(s) and direct parties to file submissions only in the lead case, in this 

instance, the parties shall continue using the separate dockets in each case to file 

documents pertaining to that case;

8. The court hereby sets a status conference for July 16, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. by Zoom, 

in both actions, to address any particular concerns the parties have with regard to 

the consolidated trial and the parties’ preparation for the final pretrial conference; 

and

9. The Clerk of the Court is directed to docket this order in both actions: Zurich 

American Ins. Co. of Illinois v. VForce Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD and 

Amazing Ins., Inc. v. DiManno et al., 2:19-cv-01349-DAD-CKD.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2023 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-02066-DAD-CKD Document 158 Filed 09/11/23 Page 6 of 6