Opinion
3:21-cv-00228-JMK 3:22-cv-00219-JMK Consolidated
11-28-2022
AHTNA DESIGN-BUILD, INC., an Alaska Corporation, Plaintiff, v. ASPHALT SURFACING, INC., a California corporation; UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Bond No. 54-197210, Defendants. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE USE OF ASPHALT SURFACING, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. AHTNA DESIGN-BUILD, INC., an Alaska Corporation; GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP, an Ohio corporation Bond No. 3348912, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
JOSHUA M. KINDRED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The parties in Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. v. Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK, and United States of America for the Use of Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. v. Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00219-JMK, submitted a joint stipulation,agreeing that (1) the two actions should be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a); (2) the Scheduling and Planning Order at Docket 16 in Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK should be amended; and (3) Ahtna Design-Build's (“ADB”) pending Motion to Strikeis rendered moot by the proposed consolidation and modification of the Scheduling and Planning Order.
Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. v. Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK, Docket 45; United States of America for the Use of Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. v. Ahtna Design-Build,Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00219-JMK, Docket 38.
Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. v. Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK, Docket 41.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) provides that courts may consolidate actions if they involve a common question of law or fact. District courts enjoy “substantial discretion in deciding whether and to what extent to consolidate cases.”Further, Rule 16(b)(4) states that a Scheduling and Planning Order may be modified for good cause. Here, the Court finds that consolidation is appropriate because both actions involve an alleged breach of a subcontract entered into between Asphalt Surfacing, Inc., and ADB. Further, the Court finds that good cause exists to modify the Scheduling and Planning Order at Docket 16 in Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK to accommodate the different stages of the two actions and to ensure that discovery is conducted efficiently in the consolidated action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Hall v. Hall, 138 S.Ct. 1118, 1131 (2018).
1. Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. v. Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK, and United States of America for the Use of Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. v. Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00219-JMK, are CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).
2. All future filings shall be filed under 3:21-cv-00228-JMK, using the above caption, unless the Court directs otherwise.
3. All parties shall comply with the Scheduling and Planning Order issued at Docket 16 in Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK. For good cause shown, that Scheduling and Planning Order is modified as follows:
Event
Modified Deadline
Identification of Expert Witnesses
November 23, 2022
Supplemental Identification of Experts
January 8, 2023
Rule 26 Expert Disclosures
March 13, 2023
Final Discovery Witness List
April 6, 2023
Close of Fact Discovery
May 10, 2023
Discovery Motions to be filed by
14 days before the close of fact discovery
Motions to Exclude Experts to be filed by
30 days after the close of expert discovery
Dispositive Motions to be filed by
30 days after the close of fact discovery
4. With this consolidation and modification of the Scheduling and Planning Order, ADB's Motion to Strike at Docket 41 in Case No. 3:21-cv-00228-JMK is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED