Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03090/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03090-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

 1Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Hamilton Mortgage Company v.

Carteret Mortgage Corporation, 2:07-cv-868-ROS, is currently pending in front of

District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver. Therefore, Defendant seeks to transfer that case

to District Court Judge Stephen M. McNamee.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hamilton Mortgage Company,

Plaintiff,

v.

Carteret Mortgage Corp.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-3090-PHX-SMM

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Transfer and

Consolidate (Doc. 29). Defendant seeks to consolidate Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital,

Inc. v. Hamilton Mortgage Company v. Carteret Mortgage Corporation, 2:07-cv-868-ROS

("the Second Action") into Hamilton Mortgage Company v. Carteret Mortgage Corporation,

2:06-cv-3090-SMM (“the Original Action”), both of which are pending in the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona.1

 

Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]hen actions

involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may . . . order

the actions consolidated.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). Similarly, LRCiv 42.1 provides that

consolidation is appropriate when two or more cases are pending before different Judges any

Case 2:06-cv-03090-SMM Document 31 Filed 06/07/07 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

- 2 -

party believes that such cases, inter alia, “arise from substantially the same transaction or

event” or “involve substantially the same parties or property.”

On November 22, 2006, Hamilton Mortgage Company (“Hamilton”) filed a

Complaint against Carteret in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Thereafter,

on December 26, 2006, Carteret removed the action to the United States District Court for

the District of Arizona, where it is docketed as Hamilton Mortgage Company v. Carteret

Mortgage Corporation, 2:06-cv-3090-SMM. The Complaint included a single claim for

breach of contract arising out of a residential mortgage loan brokered to Hamilton by Carteret

(the “Subject Loan”).

After the Original Action was filed, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc. (“Morgan

Stanley”), filed a Complaint against Hamilton in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa

County, on February 15, 2007, relating to its purchase of the Subject Loan. Hamilton

subsequently filed a Third-Party Complaint against Carteret. The Complaint is substantially

identical to the Complaint filed in the Original Action. 

On April 25, 2007, Carteret removed the Second Action to the United States District

Court for the District of Arizona, where it is docketed as the Second Action, Morgan Stanley

Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Hamilton Mortgage Company v. Carteret Mortgage Corporation,

2:07-cv-868-ROS.

The Original Action and the Second Action arise from the same set of operative facts;

each seeks to establish contract rights and liabilities among the parties relating to the Subject

Loan, which was allegedly closed under fraudulent circumstances. The cases involve

common questions of law and fact, as is evidenced by the fact that the Complaint in the

Original Action is substantially identical to the Third-Party Complaint in the Second Action.

Because both cases involve a common question of fact, judicial economy favors

consolidation. Thus, the Court finds that litigating these cases before the same judge as a

consolidated action will avoid unnecessary litigation costs and preserve judicial economy.

Moreover, transfer and consolidation of the Second Action into the Original Action will

allow for the efficient resolution of the controversy among the parties, and will ensure that

Case 2:06-cv-03090-SMM Document 31 Filed 06/07/07 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

 2 With the exception of the date set forth in the Order for the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference (Doc. 24), the parties are to comply in full with the April 16 Order (Doc. 24).

- 3 -

inconsistent verdicts do not arise in the two cases. Therefore, the Court finds consolidation

to be appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a) and LRCiv 42.1.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Consolidate and Transfer filed by

Carteret, with the consent of the other parties, is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future filings relating to these cases shall be

filed in CV 06-3090-PHX-SMM.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be provided to District

Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Preliminary Pre-trial Conference is scheduled

for August 20, 2007, at 2:00p.m. In preparation for the Preliminary Pretrial Conference, all

parties should refer to and comply with the Rule 16 Order entered on April 16, 2007,

(Doc.24).2

DATED this 6th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03090-SMM Document 31 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 3