United Specialty Insurance Company et al v. Tahoe Investments, LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1501
TAHOE INVESTMENTS, LLC DBA
MR. BINKYS #3, ET AL.
SECTION “R” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Defendant Tahoe Investments, LLC DBA Mr. Binkys #3 (“Tahoe”)
moves the Court to consolidate this declaratory judgment action with Civil
Action 25-1252 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). 1 Jenna Combel,
who is the plaintiff in the underlying action and defendant in this declaratory
judgment action, did not oppose consolidation for discovery but opposed
consolidation for trial. 2 Plaintiffs United Specialty Insurance Company and
Century Surety Company did not file any response. For the following
reasons, the Court consolidates the cases for pre-trial matters and discovery
only.
1 	R. Doc. 22.
2 	R. Doc. 25.
Case 2:25-cv-01501-SSV-EJD Document 32 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 7

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
Combel filed suit in state court for bodily injuries under the Louisiana
Products Liability Act against Tahoe and twenty other defendants whom she
alleged are distributors or manufacturers of nitrous oxide.3 	Combel then
amended her petition to assert class allegations. 4 	One defendant removed
the case to this Court under Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction. 5 	It is
pending before the Court as Civil Action 25-1252. 6
United Specialty Insurance Company and Century Surety Company
filed this action seeking a determination that they have no duty to defend or
indemnify Tahoe against the claims Combel asserts in the underlying action. 7
Tahoe now moves for the declaratory judgment action to be consolidated
with the underlying personal injury action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(a). 8 The Court considers the motion below.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) provides that “[i]f actions
before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court
3 	R. Doc. 22-1, at 1.
4 	Id.
5 	Id. at 2.
6 	Id.
7 	Id.
8 	Id. at 1.
Case 2:25-cv-01501-SSV-EJD Document 32 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 7

3
may . . . consolidate the actions.” 	Accordingly, the mechanism should be
used to “eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion.” 	Miller v. U.S.
Postal Serv., 729 F.2d 1033, 1036 (5th Cir. 1984) (citing In re Air Crash
Disaster, 549 F.2d 1006, 1013 (5th Cir. 1977)). 	Further, trial courts are
afforded broad discretion in deciding whether to consolidate cases. Alley v.
Chrysler Credit Corp., 767 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Luera v.
M/V Alberta, 635 F.3d 181, 194 (5th Cir. 2011) (“Rule 42(a) provides district
courts with broad authority to consolidate actions that involve a common
question of law or fact.”).
In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, district courts
consider: (1) the extent of commonality of factual and legal issues, evidence,
and witnesses; (2) the risk of inconsistent adjudications absent joint trial; (3)
the relative burden on the parties, witnesses, and judicial resources; (4) the
relative advantage in savings of time and expense by reducing the number of
trials; (5) the risk of prejudice and jury confusion; and (6) the possibility to
control for prejudice and jury confusion with proper jury instructions and
manner in which the claims are submitted for deliberation. 	See, e.g.,
Campbell v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 882 F.3d 70, 74 (4th Cir. 2018) (affirming
consolidated trials of four personal injury actions involving common factual
and legal issues); Eghnayem v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 873 F.3d 1304, 1314 (11th Cir.
Case 2:25-cv-01501-SSV-EJD Document 32 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 7

4
2017) (same); see also Order Re Trial Structure & Motions in Limine, In re
HIV Antitrust Litig., No. 3:19-CV-2573 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2023), ECF No.
1716, 	https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035122945725 	(noting 	unfair
prejudice can be avoided in single trial of related plaintiffs’ claims by
appropriate jury instructions that highlight that plaintiffs have different
claims governed by different law on damages).
III. 	DISCUSSION
The Court consolidates the actions for pre-trial matters and discovery.
Several factors support this decision. The two cases share common questions
of fact, such as where Combel inhaled the substances at issue. 	The actions
are both pending before this Section of the Eastern District of Louisiana. The
declaratory-action 	defendants 	are 	parties 	to 	the 	personal-injury 	suit.
Consolidation will conserve judicial resources and reduce the time for
resolving the cases.
The Court does not consolidate the actions for trial because of the risk
of jury confusion. The Court finds that resolving the claims in the declaratory
judgment action and in the underlying personal injury action will turn on
different factual questions and legal analysis. See, e.g., Lancer Ins. Co. v.
Hitts, 2010 WL 2867836, at *4 (M.D. Ga. Jul. 20, 2010) (declining to
consolidate a personal injury suit and an insurer’s declaratory judgment suit
Case 2:25-cv-01501-SSV-EJD Document 32 Filed 03/09/26 Page 4 of 7

5
because the suits turned on different law and claims); Fryer v. Umia, 2025
WL 2552556 at *1 (D. Mont. Jan. 21, 2025) (same); see also Allstate Ins. Co.
v. Scarbrough, 2016 WL 10588007, at *3 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 15, 2016)
(ordering separate trials of an insurance coverage claim and tort liability
claim); Johnson v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 213 F. Supp. 2d 657, 661 n.4 (S.D.
Miss. 2001) (same). The declaratory judgment action is at its core a contract
dispute. It will require the jury to determine whether the products at issue
satisfy the policy definition of “psychotropic substances,” whether the
alleged injuries occurred on a premises the contract governed, and whether
the insured is liable as a “video store.” 9 By contrast, the personal injury action
is a suit under the Louisiana Products Liability Act that will require no such
factual determinations and instead will require the jury to hear evidence on
product-design warnings, causation, and damages. 10 	The Court finds that
considering the cases together would likely generate jury confusion. The
Court 	thus 	denies 	the 	motion 	to 	consolidate 	insofar 	as 	it 	sought
consolidation for trial.
9 	R. Doc. 31 at 3-4.
10 	Id. at 3.
Case 2:25-cv-01501-SSV-EJD Document 32 Filed 03/09/26 Page 5 of 7

6
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	it 	is 	ORDERED 	that 	this 	case 	be
consolidated 	with 	Combel 	v. 	Great 	International 	Supply 	Chain
Management Company, Ltd., 25-1252 (E.D. La., filed June 18, 2025) for pre-
trial and discovery.
All pleadings hereafter filed in this consolidated proceeding shall bear
the caption of the lead consolidated case together with the docket number of
all cases within the consolidation to which the document applies or the
notation “ALL CASES” if it applies to all cases.
The Clerk of Court is directed to establish a master file and a master
docket sheet for the consolidated group of cases.
All entries shall be made on the master docket sheet only, with a
notation listing the cases to which the document applies, except that orders
and documents terminating a party or disposing of a case will also be entered
on the individual docket sheet. All documents shall be filed in the master file
only, except that orders and documents terminating a party or disposing of
a case will also be filed in the record of the individual case.
When the case is later de-consolidated for trial, counsel must jointly
designate the documents in the master record necessary to the continued
Case 2:25-cv-01501-SSV-EJD Document 32 Filed 03/09/26 Page 6 of 7

7
litigation of the separated case and file such designation with the clerk within
seven days of the de-consolidation order.
The Court shall issue an Amended Scheduling Order applicable to the
consolidated matter.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of March, 2026.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9th
Case 2:25-cv-01501-SSV-EJD Document 32 Filed 03/09/26 Page 7 of 7