1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY Case No. 25-cv-09734-JSC INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 CONSOLIDATE v. 10 Re: Dkt. No. 9

NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY

11 INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate this action with Homesite Insurance 14 Company v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-09752-JSC. (Dkt. No. 15 9.) Both suits are before this Court. In both suits, a different plaintiff brings the same four causes 16 of action, against the same defendant, arising from the same construction project. (Compare Dkt. 17 No. 1, with Dkt. No. 1 in Homesite v. Navigators, Case No. 3:25-cv-09752.) Defendant did not 18 file an opposition to the motion, and the plaintiff in the Homesite action filed a statement of non- 19 opposition. (Dkt. No. 16.) 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 governs consolidation of cases. Rule 42(a) provides 21 the Court may consolidate actions before it that “involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. 22 R. Civ. P. 42(a). Under Rule 42, “[t]he district court has broad discretion [ ] to consolidate cases 23 pending in the same district.” Inv’rs Res. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 24 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, the court “weighs 25 the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or 26 expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). 27 After carefully considering the arguments and briefing submitted, the Court concludes oral 1 and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. There are common questions of law and fact because both 2 actions arise out of the same construction project and allege virtually identical causes of action 3 against the same defendant. The motion is unopposed, so consolidation would not cause 4 || inconvenience or prejudice. These actions are consolidated under the docket number of the first- 5 filed Crum & Forster case, under the title Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, et al. v. 6 Navigators Specialty Insurance Company. 7 The Court sets an initial case management conference for January 28, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. by 8 || Zoom videoconference. A joint case management conference statement is due a week in advance. 9 The Court advises the parties to be prepared to discuss the filing and service of a consolidated 10 || complaint, as well as Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Crum & Forster’s complaint. 11 This Order disposes of Docket No. 9. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 13 Dated: January 16, 2026

15

JACBUELINE SCOTT CORLE

= 16 United States District Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28