Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02161/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02161-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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 - 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Henry J. Wojtunik, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV-03-2161-PHX-PGR

)

vs. )

) 

Joseph P. Kealy, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

)

Henry J. Wojtunik, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV-07-0515-PHX-SMM

)

vs. )

) ORDER

Carolina Casualty Insurance Co., )

)

Defendant. ) )

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Wojtunik v.

Carolina Casualty Insurance Company, No. CV-07-00515-SMM, to the Honorable

Paul G. Rosenblatt Pursuant to District of Arizona Local Rule 42.1 (doc. #137). 

Having considered the parties' memoranda, the Court finds that the motion

should be denied.

Case 2:03-cv-02161-ROS Document 153 Filed 06/05/07 Page 1 of 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

1

 LR 42.1 provides in relevant part:

(a)(1) Whenever two or more cases are pending before different Judges

and any party believes that such cases (A) arise from substantially the

same transaction or events; (B) involves substantially the same parties or

property; ... (D) calls for determination of substantially the same question

of law; or (E) for any other reason would entail substantial duplication of

labor if heard by different Judges, any party may file a motion to transfer

- 2 -

A stipulated judgment in the undersigned Judge's securities fraud action

was entered on December 19, 2006. A garnishment proceeding, commenced on

February 15, 2007, was the only portion of the case remaining at the time the

motion to transfer was filed. The garnishment proceeding was initiated by the

plaintiff in an attempt to collect on the stipulated judgment by obtaining the

insurance benefits owed to the settling defendants under a directors and officers

liability policy issued by Carolina Casualty Insurance Company. In his

subsequently filed action against Carolina Casualty, commenced on March 7,

2007 and assigned to Judge McNamee, the plaintiff, as the judgment creditor and

assignee of the settling defendants' claims against Carolina Casualty and their

excess insurers, seeks a declaration that there is coverage under Carolina

Casualty's insurance policy to pay the stipulated judgment, as well as damages

for Carolina Casualty's alleged breach of contract and bad faith in handling the

settling defendants' insurance claim.

The plaintiff seeks the transfer of Judge McNamee's later-filed case to the

undersigned Judge under LRCiv 42.1 on the grounds that both cases arise from

substantially the same transaction or event, involve the same parties, and call for

determination of the same issues of law, and that the transfer will avoid

substantial duplication of effort and will promote judicial economy.1

 Carolina

Case 2:03-cv-02161-ROS Document 153 Filed 06/05/07 Page 2 of 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

the case or cases involved to a single Judge.

* * *

(a)(4) In determining the Judge to whom the case or cases will be

assigned pursuant to subparagraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) above, the following

factors may be considered: (A) whether substantive matters have been

considered in a case;

(B) which Judge has the most familiarity with the issues involved in the

case;

(C) whether a case is reasonably viewed as the lead or principal case; or 

(D) any other factor serving the interest of judicial economy.

- 3 -

Casualty argues, and the Court concurs, that the requested transfer is not

warranted.

First, while the addition of the insurance coverage issue through the

garnishment proceeding has given the two cases some commonality in legal and

factual issues, there are significant differences between the two cases given that

Judge McNamee's broader case includes the additional substantial issues of

Carolina Casualty's alleged breach of contract and bad faith. 

 Second, a transfer would do nothing to promote judicial economy because

the undersigned Judge has no more familiarity with the insurance coverage issue

at this time than does Judge McNamee.

Third, a transfer is not necessary to avoid substantial duplication of labor

because the insurance coverage issue that the cases had in common at the time

the motion to transfer was filed is no longer relevant to the undersigned Judge's

case as the Court, by separate order, is quashing the writ of garnishment wherein

the coverage issue was raised. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Wojtunik v. Carolina

Casualty Insurance Company, No. CV-07-00515-SMM, to the Honorable Paul G.

/ / /

Case 2:03-cv-02161-ROS Document 153 Filed 06/05/07 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

Rosenblatt Pursuant to District of Arizona Local Rule 42.1 (doc. #137) is denied.

DATED this 5th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-02161-ROS Document 153 Filed 06/05/07 Page 4 of 4