GIBNEY, J. Triton Realty Limited Partnership and Triton Realty, Inc. (“the plaintiffs), plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases, have moved the Court for an order consolidating these two cases for the purposes of pretrial discovery and pretrial motions. As grounds for this motion, the plaintiffs assert that there are questions of law and fact common to both causes of action, that the various parties involved in the two actions may have interests in the resolution of issues raised in each of the cases, and that the consolidation will further the goal of judicial economy. Burlington Insurance Company objected to the motion, but has since been dismissed from case No. 04-2335. The motion was argued before the Court on January 12, 2005, at which time Burlington voiced objections to consolidation. C.A. No. 04-2335 and C.A.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATION
PROVIDENCE, SC.
Filed August 17, 2005
:
:
:
:
v.
:
:
GEORGE ALMEIDA, JR. d/b/a
:
GEORGE ALMEIDA INSURANCE;
:
SEAN LENNON; BURLINGTON
:
INSURANCE CO. and GRESHAM &
:
ASSOCIATES OF RHODE
:
ISLAND, INC.,
:
:
:
:
TRITON REALTY LIMITED
:
PARTNERSHIP and TRITON
:
REALTY, INC.,
:
:
v.
:
:
ESSEX MUTUAL INSURANCE
:
COMPANY; MERCHANTS
:
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW
:
HAMPSHIRE, INC., MERCHANTS
:
GROUP; NATIONAL FIRE
:
INSURANCE COMPANY OF
:
HARTFORD; CNA INSURANCE
:
COMPANY; DERCO, LLC; JEFFREY :
DERDERIAN; and MICHAEL
:
DERDERIAN
:
SUPERIOR COURT
TRITON REALTY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP and TRITON
REALTY, INC.,
C.A. No. 04-2335
Consolidated for limited purposes with
C.A. No. 03-2061
DECISION
GIBNEY, J.
Triton Realty Limited Partnership and Triton Realty, Inc. (“the plaintiffs”),
plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases, have moved the Court for an order consolidating these
two cases for the purposes of pretrial discovery and pretrial motions. As grounds for this motion,
1
the plaintiffs assert that there are questions of law and fact common to both causes of action, that
the various parties involved in the two actions may have interests in the resolution of issues
raised in each of the cases, and that the consolidation will further the goal of judicial economy.
Burlington Insurance Company objected to the motion, but has since been dismissed from case
No. 04-2335. The motion was argued before the Court on January 12, 2005, at which time
Burlington voiced objections to consolidation.
Triton Realty LP v. Almeida, C.A. No. 04-2335 is a negligence action brought by the
plaintiffs against an insurance agent, an insurance agency, an insurance broker, and two
insurance companies seeking damages resulting from the defendants’ alleged neglect to add the
plaintiffs as additional insureds on a property insurance policy. Triton Realty LP v. Essex, C.A.
No. 03-2061 is a declaratory judgment action brought by the plaintiffs to determine the nature
and extent of coverage under several insurance policies. The two cases do not involve common
questions of law as the former suit is a negligence action, sounding in tort, while the latter
involves issues of contract interpretation. The parties agreed at oral argument, however, that it
would be reasonable to consolidate for the purpose of taking depositions in order to avoid
requiring certain witnesses to be subjected to multiple depositions, particularly as the witnesses
would be addressing similar factual issues.
When two or more actions are before the Court, sharing common questions of law or fact,
the Court is authorized to order a joint hearing or trial on such issues and make other such orders
as will facilitate the avoidance of unnecessary costs and delays. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 42. The
scope of this authority extends to the issuance of an order to consolidate cases for purposes of
discovery. See Newmark v. Turner Broadcasting Network, 226 F.Supp.2d 1215 (C.D. Calif.
2002) (consolidating for purposes of trial while reserving the issue of consolidation for trial);
2
Schreiber Foods Int'l, Inc. v. Intercargo Napoli S.R.L., No. 98 CV 5954, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
679, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 1999) (same).
The Court finds that consolidating the two cases for the purpose of deposing witnesses
will serve the purposes of conserving the resources of the parties, witnesses, and this Court. Per
suggestion of the parties, deposition notices and any objections and motions relating to the taking
of depositions shall be served on all parties to both cases, who are free to participate or not, as
desired. With respect to the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate for purposes of pretrial motion
practice, however, this Court finds that the divergence of issues between the two cases is such
that the requested action would not further the goals of consolidation. There is no need, for
example, for George Almeida, Jr., a defendant in No. 04-2335, to concern himself with the
dispositive motions filed in case No. 03-2061. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate
with regard to pretrial motion practice is denied.
appropriate order for entry.
3
The parties are directed to submit an
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
