Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company

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
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-09734-JSC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE
Re: Dkt. No. 9
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate this action with Homesite Insurance
Company v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-09752-JSC. (Dkt. No.
9.) Both suits are before this Court. In both suits, a different plaintiff brings the same four causes
of action, against the same defendant, arising from the same construction project. (Compare Dkt.
No. 1, with Dkt. No. 1 in Homesite v. Navigators, Case No. 3:25-cv-09752.) Defendant did not
file an opposition to the motion, and the plaintiff in the Homesite action filed a statement of non-
opposition. (Dkt. No. 16.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 governs consolidation of cases. Rule 42(a) provides
the Court may consolidate actions before it that “involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 42(a). Under Rule 42, “[t]he district court has broad discretion [ ] to consolidate cases
pending in the same district.” Inv’rs Res. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d
777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, the court “weighs
the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or
expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).
After carefully considering the arguments and briefing submitted, the Court concludes oral
argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the hearing set for January 29, 2026,
Case 3:25-cv-09734-JSC Document 18 Filed 01/16/26 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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. There are common questions of law and fact because both
actions arise out of the same construction project and allege virtually identical causes of action
against the same defendant. The motion is unopposed, so consolidation would not cause
inconvenience or prejudice. These actions are consolidated under the docket number of the first-
filed Crum & Forster case, under the title Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, et al. v.
Navigators Specialty Insurance Company.
The Court sets an initial case management conference for January 28, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. by
Zoom videoconference. A joint case management conference statement is due a week in advance.
The Court advises the parties to be prepared to discuss the filing and service of a consolidated
complaint, as well as Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Crum & Forster’s complaint.
This Order disposes of Docket No. 9.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 16, 2026
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-09734-JSC Document 18 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 2