Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08150/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08150-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lancer Insurance Co., et. al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

Western Distributing Co., et. al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 08-CV-8084-PCT-PGR

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is the unopposed Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 25) the action

styled Great American Insurance Company v. Western Distributing Company, et al., Case

No. CIV-08-8150-PCT-FJM with the instant action. After careful consideration, the Court

rules the following.

BACKGROUND

This matter arises from a motor vehicle accident on Interstate 40 outside of Seligman,

Arizona, on July 10, 2006. The accident involved a tractor-trailer driven by Ronald Hale,

an employee of Western Distributing, and a coach operated by Yue Pang, an employee of

Sina International, Inc. dba Sina Coach (hereinafter "Sina"). 

On July 7, 2008, Sina and its insurance carrier, Lancer Insurance Company,

commenced the instant action. Thereafter, on July 9, 2008, Sina’s workers’ compensation

insurance carrier, Great American Insurance Company, commenced an action in the Superior

Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino, styled Great

American Insurance Company v. Western Distributing Transportation Corp., et al., Case No.

CIVSS809149, seeking to recover benefits allegedly paid to Sina’s driver, Yue Pang.

Case 3:08-cv-08150-PGR Document 36 Filed 01/13/09 Page 1 of 3
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 In its Order, the Central District of California Court specifically found that the

separate actions both arose out of the same accident.

- 2 -

Western Distributing then removed the action to the United States District Court for the

Central District of California on August 29, 2008, and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), filed

a Motion for Transfer of Venue. The Central District of California Court granted Western

Distributing’s Motion and transferred the action to this Court on November 18, 2008.1

LAW AND ANALYSIS

A court may consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact, and/or

would entail substantial duplication of labor or inconsistency in judgments if heard by

different Judges. Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 42(a) and LRCiv 42.1. Decisions regarding

consolidation are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Investors Research Company, et al.

v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir.

1989). The district court has broad discretion under Rule 42(a) to consolidate cases pending

in the same district. Id. In exercising its broad discretion to order consolidation of actions,

the district court must weigh the saving of time and effort that would be produced by

consolidation against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause. Huene et al.

v. U.S. et al., 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).

The two relevant actions undisputedly involve common questions of law and fact

related to claims arising out of the accident on July 10, 2006. Consolidating the two actions

would be significantly more efficient than trying the cases individually. Consolidation would

effectively conserve time and effort and avoid the unnecessary costs to the parties of

litigating a separate, second lawsuit. Furthermore, it would eliminate the substantial

Case 3:08-cv-08150-PGR Document 36 Filed 01/13/09 Page 2 of 3
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 -

duplication of labor which would otherwise result from having separate judges hear the cases

separately. Finally, it would avoid the risk of potentially inconsistent outcomes. See Huene

et al. v. U.S. et al., 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). The Court agrees with the parties that

consolidation of the actions would not result in inconvenience, delay, or expense sufficient

to offset the benefit of saving of time, expenses, and effort that would result from

consolidating the actions.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 25) CIV08-8150-PCT-FJM with CIV-08-8084-PCT-PGR.

DATED this 12th day of January, 2009.

Case 3:08-cv-08150-PGR Document 36 Filed 01/13/09 Page 3 of 3