Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02119/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02119-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)

---

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 

Lexington Insurance Company, a Delaware 

Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Scott Homes Multifamily, Inc., an Arizona 

corporation; and Silverbell 290 Limited 

Partnership, an Arizona Limited 

Partnership, 

Defendants. 

____________________________________ 

Silverbell 290 Limited Partnership, an 

Arizona Limited Partnership, individually 

and as the assignee of Defendant Scott 

Homes Multifamily, Inc., 

Counterclaimants, 

v. 

Lexington Insurance Company, a Delaware 

corporation, 

Counterdefendant. 

No. CV-12-02119-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Related Case (Doc. 51). 

The Court now rules on the Motion. 

Case 2:12-cv-02119-JAT Document 70 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

 On October 8, 2012, Plaintiff Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) filed a 

complaint against Scott Homes Multifamily, Inc. (“Scott Homes”) and Silverbell 290 LP 

(“Silverbell”). That lawsuit, CV 12-2119, (Lexington) was assigned to the undersigned. 

On March 22, 2013, Chartis Special Insurance Company and Lexington filed a complaint 

against Scott Homes, Pacific Capital Investments, 2006 Acquisitions LLC, Blackhawk 

Crystal Springs LLC, Crystal Springs Investors LLC, Crystal Springs Phase I LLC, and 

Oak Park Crystal Springs LLC. That lawsuit, CV 13-00601, (Chartis) was assigned to 

the Honorable Roslyn Silver. 

 Lexington now seeks to transfer Chartis to the undersigned. Defendant Silverbell 

opposes the Motion to Transfer. 

 Pursuant to LRCiv 42.1(a), 

Whenever two or more cases are pending before different 

Judges, a party in any of those cases may file a motion to 

transfer the case or cases to a single Judge on the ground that 

the cases: (1) arise from substantially the same transaction or 

event; (2) involve substantially the same parties or property; 

(3) involve the same patent, trademark, or copyright; (4) call 

for determination of substantially the same questions of law; 

or (5) for any other reason would entail substantial 

duplication of labor if heard by different Judges. 

LRCiv 42.1(a). 

 “District Court judges have ‘broad discretion’ regarding the assignment or 

reassignment of cases.” Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 575 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal 

citation omitted). 

 Plaintiff argues that Chartis should be transferred to the undersigned because both 

Chartis and Lexington involve “identical issues under an excess policy of insurance 

issued by Lexington, involving largely the same parties and, accordingly, substantial 

duplication of labor could be avoided if transfer were granted.” (Doc. 51 at 2). Plaintiff 

specifically identifies the following facts to support its contention that Chartis should be 

transferred: (1) both actions involve a demand for coverage of a stipulated judgment for 

damages allegedly caused by the insured Scott Homes in the construction of an apartment 

Case 2:12-cv-02119-JAT Document 70 Filed 08/07/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

complex under an excess liability policy issued by an insurance company; (2) Lexington 

and Scott Homes are parties to both suits; and (3) both actions will require interpretation 

of similar contract language. 

 In response, Defendant Silverbell argues that Chartis should not be transferred 

because: (1) each case involves two separate judgments against Scott Homes, (2) the two 

judgments are for two separate plaintiffs that own two separate apartment complexes that 

were built at different times and suffer from different damages, and (3) the insurance 

policies in each case are different as to the type of polices, the parties to the policies, the 

language of the policies, and the number of policies at issue. Defendant Silverbell argues 

that the only commonality shared between the cases is that Scott Homes is a party to 

both. 

 As set forth above, the Parties widely diverge on the similarity of the two cases. 

After reading the briefing and the complaints in both cases, it appears that, in both 

Chartis and Lexington, the Court may be required to interpret the same or similar policy 

language for at least one of the policies at issue in both cases. While the Court 

acknowledges that two parties are common to both actions and there may be some 

overlap in at least one of the legal issues in both suits, the Court finds that there are 

substantial differences between the cases and, thus, transfer is not warranted under the 

circumstances. 

 Although the cases share a common factual background in a general sense, as 

pointed out by Defendant Silverbell, the specific facts in both suits are completely 

different. Further, although some of the legal issues in both cases may overlap, it appears 

that Chartis involves a number of legal issues that will not be addressed in Lexington. As 

such, there is unlikely to be a substantial duplication of effort that would be saved if both 

cases were being heard by one judge. Accordingly, because the cases involve completely 

different sets of facts and address different legal issues, transfer would not be 

economical. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

Case 2:12-cv-02119-JAT Document 70 Filed 08/07/13 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Related Case (Doc. 51) is 

denied. 

 The Clerk of the Court shall file a copy of this Order in CV 13-00601-PHX-ROS. 

 Dated this 6th day of August, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02119-JAT Document 70 Filed 08/07/13 Page 4 of 4