AXIS Specialty Europe SE v. BITCO General Insurance Corporation et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BITCO GENERAL INSURANCE )
CORPORATION, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-405-G
)
BJ’S OILFIELD CONSTRUCTION )
INC. et al., )
)
Defendants. )
AXIS SPECIALTY EUROPE SE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-819-G
)
BITCO GENERAL INSURANCE )
CORPORATION et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Now before the Court is a Motion to Consolidate (Doc. No. 21) filed by Plaintiff
Axis Specialty Europe SE in Case No. CIV-25-819-G (the “Axis action”) on October 24,
2025. The Motion seeks consolidation for all purposes of the Axis action with Case No.
CIV-25-405-G (the “BITCO action”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).
See Mot. to Consolidate at 4-5. The Motion argues that consolidation is warranted due to
the substantial factual and legal overlap between the two cases. See id. at 4 (“Both actions
turn on the same principal legal issue: which insurer(s) had a duty to defend and indemnify
Case 5:25-cv-00819-G Document 27 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
SunPower and OG&E.”). The Motion requests that the Axis action be administratively
dismissed and that the earlier-filed BITCO action serve as the continued lawsuit for this
matter. See id. at 5.
The Motion to Consolidate represents that all parties to the Axis action agree to
consolidation. See id. at 4-5. On November 25, 2025, the Court directed the Clerk to file
a copy of the Motion in the BITCO action and advised that “[a]ny party to the BITCO
action who wishes to file a written response must do so within twenty-one (21) days.”
Order (Doc. No. 38) at 2; see Notice of Mot. (Doc. No. 39). No party filed a response.
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribes that “[i]f actions
before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate
the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). “Consolidation of cases is permitted as a matter of
convenience and economy, even though consolidation does not merge separate suits into
one cause of action.” Harris v. Ill.-Cal. Exp., Inc., 687 F.2d 1361, 1368 (10th Cir. 1982)
(noting that consolidation has been ordered “[w]here the subject matter of the claims made
in separate actions arise[s] out of the same transaction and involve common issues of law
and fact”).
Having considered the unopposed Motion and having found that the actions involve
“common question[s] of law” and “fact,” the Court concludes that consolidation is
appropriate and will not cause delay, confusion, or prejudice to the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P.
42(a).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. No. 21, No.
CIV-25-819-G) is GRANTED as follows:
Case 5:25-cv-00819-G Document 27 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1) Case Nos. CIV-25-405-G and CIV-25-819-G are consolidated in their entirety
for all purposes.
2) Both actions shall proceed together under Case No. CIV-25-405-G. All future
filings shall be made only in Case No. CIV-25-405-G, unless otherwise ordered.
3) All pending deadlines in Case No. CIV-405-G are hereby STRICKEN.
4) The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order in Case Nos. CIV-25-405-G
and CIV-25-819-G and is further directed to administratively close Case No.
CIV-25-819-G.
5) The Court shall set this consolidated action for a status and scheduling
conference on its next available conference docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00819-G Document 27 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3