Cymbidium Restoration Trust v. American Homeowner Preservation Trust Series AHP Servicing
2:24-cv-00025
| W.D. Wash. | Apr 7, 2025Background
- Cymbidium Restoration Trust filed suit in state court alleging breach of contract and conversion; AHP removed the case to federal court and filed counterclaims and third-party claims.
- The third-party complaint by AHP was dismissed as its claims were deemed independent from Cymbidium’s claims, not supporting impleader.
- AHP subsequently initiated a separate federal case in California (AHP Capital action) involving overlapping parties and some similar legal issues, which was transferred to the same district as this case.
- AHP moved to consolidate the Cymbidium and AHP Capital actions, arguing for efficiency given overlapping witnesses and evidence.
- Cymbidium and certain defendants opposed consolidation, citing different litigation stages and potential prejudice; there was also a pending motion to stay the later-filed action.
- The trial date for the Cymbidium action was set for October 2025, while the AHP Capital case was in early procedural stages without a trial date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to consolidate cases | Opposes; consolidation would delay trial and cause prejudice given different stages | Supports; claims overlap, consolidation avoids duplicative litigation | Denied; consolidation would delay the Cymbidium action and prejudice parties at this stage |
| Whether to continue Cymbidium case schedule | No explicit argument on continuance; requested short extension due to scheduling conflict | Argues for further delay to align with AHP Capital action discovery | Only a short continuance granted; schedule not aligned with the AHP Capital action |
Key Cases Cited
- Investors Res. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Calif., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989) (District courts have broad discretion to consolidate cases that share common questions of law or fact)
- Single Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (Courts must weigh efficiencies against delay, expense, and potential prejudice in consolidation decisions)