Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02335/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02335-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Carley Anne Miller,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Pacific Indemnity Company,

Defendant.

No. CV-18-02335-PHX-JAS

No. CV-19-04999-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate Miller v. Pacific 

Indemnity Co., CV-18-2335, with Bishop v. Pacific Indemnity Co., CV-19-4999. (Doc. 

163.)1

Cases pending before different Judges may be transferred to a single Judge if they 

“(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). 

Courts may consolidate actions before them that involve common questions of law or 

fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). Parties do not need to consent to consolidation. In re Air 

Crash Disaster at Fla. Everglades on Dec. 29, 1972, 549 F.2d 1006, 1013 (5th Cir. 

1977). Courts should avoid prejudicing either party by consolidating actions. Cantrell v. 

1

Judge Soto has consulted with Judge Humetewa and will decide this motion, as the 

Judge assigned to the case with the lowest case number. LRCiv 42.1(b). All document 

numbers refer to the docket number in Miller v. Pacific Indemnity Co., CV-18-2335.

Case 2:18-cv-02335-JAS Document 182 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 2
- 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

GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir. 1993). 

The parties agree that this case involves substantially the same questions of law 

and fact. (Docs. 163, 165, 168.) The Court finds good cause to transfer Bishop v. Pacific 

Indemnity Co., CV-19-4999 to Judge Soto. This will result in a more efficient use of 

court resources and a reduction in the risk of inconsistent rulings. Only one Judge will 

need to go through the facts and law in common. 

Miller v. Pacific Indemnity Co., CV-18-2335, has completed discovery and 

currently has a pending motion for summary judgment (Doc. 180). Bishop v. Pacific 

Indemnity Co., CV-19-4999, is in its infancy, no schedule has been issued or depositions 

started. Due to this difference in time and position of the cases, the Court will not 

consolidate the two actions. Consolidation would result in delay for Miller v. Pacific 

Indemnity Co., CV-18-2335, or prejudice for Bishop v. Pacific Indemnity Co., CV-19-

4999. 

IT IS ORDERED that Bishop v. Pacific Indemnity Co., CV-19-4999 shall be 

transferred to this Court. In future filings, the “DJH” shall be replaced by “JAS” (i.e., CV 

19-4999-PHX-JAS), as this case has now been transferred to this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to consolidate (Doc. 163) is granted, 

to the extent transfer to this Court was requested, and all other relief is denied. 

Dated this 19th day of December, 2019.

Case 2:18-cv-02335-JAS Document 182 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 2