Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company v. BNSF Railway Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA ENUMCLAW INSURANCE COMPANY CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05727-DGE 11 et al., ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES 12 Plaintiffs, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on its own review of Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company of America v. BNSF Railway Company, 3:25-cv-05727-DGE and Brooks et al v. BNSF Railway Company, 3:24-cv-05158-DGE.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) provides: “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: . . . consolidate the actions.” “An action is related to another when the actions: concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction, or event; and it appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or the potential for conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges.”

1 Local Civ. Rule 3(g)(4)(A)–(B). “The district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Invs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989).

4 Brooks et al., 3:24-cv-05158-DGE has been in federal court since February 27, 2024.

5 Brooks et al., 3:24-cv-05158-DGE, Dkt. No. 1. The case has twice already been consolidated.

6 Brooks et al., 3:24-cv-05158-DGE, Dkt. Nos. 38, 52. On August 18, 2025, BNSF Railway Company filed a notice of removal in Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company v. BSNF Railway Company, 3:25-cv-05727-DGE, noting the matter as a related case. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Co., 3:25-cv-05727-DGE, Dkt. No. 4. Both cases arise from the July 2, 2023 “Tunnel 5 Fire” in Skamania County, Washington. Brooks et al., 3:24-cv-05158-DGE, Dkt. No. 51 at 3; Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company, 3:25-cv-05727-DGE, Dkt. No. 1-2 at 2. Common to both actions is a negligence claim. Brooks et al., 3:24-cv-05158-DGE, Dkt. No. 51 at 10; Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company, 3:25-cv-05727-DGE, Dkt. No. 1-2 at 10. Further, “[a]ll of the Plaintiff Insurance Companies’ claims are subrogated to the claims of their Insureds” and Insureds Steven Maier, Harrison Kor and/or Kor Harrison, Lance Brooks, Steven Wolff, Andrew Bissell, Robert Florek, and Patrick W. McConnell are all current parties in Brooks et al., 3:24-cv-05158-DGE. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company, 3:25-cv- 05727-DGE, Dkt. No. 1 at 3.

19 Here, the Court finds the above-captioned actions involve the same Defendant BNSF Railway, substantially identical legal and factual claims by Plaintiffs, and consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and duplication of proceedings. No party objected to consolidation.

22 Brooks et al., 3:25-cv-05158-DGE, Dkt. No. 54; Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company, 3:25- cv-05727-DGE, Dkt. No. 12 (challenging certain allegations in Defendant’s motion for removal but not consolidation itself). Thus, good cause exists to consolidate these cases.

3 Accordingly, the case of Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company of America v. BNSF Railway Company, 3:25-cv-05727-DGE shall be consolidated into Brooks et al v. BNSF Railway Company, 3:24-cv-05158-DGE.

6 1. The above-referenced cases are hereby consolidated for all purposes, including trial, 7 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a); 8 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced 9 cases; and 10 3. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file documents 11 under Brooks et al v. BNSF Railway Company, 3:24-cv-05158-DGE. The Clerk of 12 the Court is directed to close Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company v. BNSF 13 Railway Company, 3:25-cv-05727-DGE.

14 4. The Scheduling Order issued in Brooks et al v. BNSF Railway Company, 3:24-cv- 15 05158-DGE at Dkt. No. 45 remains in place.

16 Dated this 8th day of September, 2025. a David G. Estudillo 19 United States District Judge