UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 25-cv-10457-NMG

LOWELL FLEET MAINTENANCE, LLC, et al.

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS DRISS ANGARI AND HAYAT CHAHBOUNI’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE OR DISMISS

HEDGES, M.J.

Plaintiff Employers Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) filed this action in February 2025, seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify defendant Lowell Fleet Maintenance, LLC, under certain insurance policies. On September 2, 2025, Lowell Fleet Maintenance filed a motion to consolidate this case—Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. Lowell Fleet Maintenance, LLC, et al., 25-cv-10457-NMG (“EMC I”)—with two related, later-filed declaratory judgment actions: Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. Lowell Fleet Maintenance, LLC, et al., 25-cv-11812-NMG (“EMC II”) and Lowell Fleet Towing, Inc. v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, 25-cv-12369-NMG. See EMC I at Docket No. 38. On October 3, 2025, the Court allowed the motion, consolidated the three cases, and designated the above-captioned action as the lead case. See EMC I at Docket No. 41. Pending before me is a Motion to Consolidate or Dismiss filed by defendants Driss Angari and Hayat Chahbouni (“Defendants”) in EMC II on August 7, 2025, which was referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation on September 18, 2025. See EMC II at Docket Nos. 13, 19. In that motion, Defendants claimed that EMC failed to join them as necessary parties in EMC I and, as a remedy, requested that EMC II be dismissed or consolidated

with EMC I. EMC II at Docket No. 13. The Defendants have since obtained that remedy because EMC II has been consolidated with EMC I. See EMC I at Docket No. 38. Their motion is, accordingly, moot. In view of the foregoing, I recommend that the District Judge DENY as moot Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate or Dismiss. EMC II at Docket No. 13.1 SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jessica D. Hedges Dated: October 20, 2025 United States Magistrate Judge

1 The parties are hereby advised that under the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Rule 3 of the Rules for United States Magistrate Judges in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, any party who objects to these proposed findings and recommendations must file specific written objections thereto with the Clerk of this Court within fourteen days of service of this Report and Recommendation. The written objections must specifically identify the portion of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The parties are further advised that the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit has repeatedly indicated that failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) will preclude further appellate review of the District Court’s order based on this Report and Recommendation. See Keating v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs.,

(1st Cir. 1988); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,

(1st Cir. 1980); Scott v. Schweiker,

(1st Cir. 1983).