James Dickey, Inc. et al v. Alterra America Insurance Company et al

Filing 44

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court issues an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as moot. Plaintiff shall submit a response no later than January 3, 2017. Failure to respond by that date will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice without further warning from the Court. The stay shall remain in place until that time. (lc)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

JAMES DICKEY, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 5:15-cv-0963-ODW(DTB)

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE

ALTERRA AMERICA INSURANCE

DISMISSAL

COMPANY, AND DOES 1–20,
INCLUSIVE,

17

Defendant.

18
19

Plaintiff James Dickey, Inc. (“Dickey”) brought suit against Defendant Alterra

20

America Insurance Company (“AAIC”) for breach of contract and tortious breach of

21

the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; Plaintiff also seeks declaratory

22

relief.

23

originally filed in the San Bernardino Superior Court on March 23, 2015. (Notice of

24

Removal, ECF No. 1.) Defendants timely removed the action to federal court on May

25

15, 2015. (Id.)

(First Amendment Complaint, ECF No. 29).

Plaintiff’s Complaint was

26

This case relates to an insurance claim for tools stolen from Dickey’s

27

equipment yard during a break-in. (ECF No. 32). The Court previously issued an

28

order staying the case pending an appraisal of the stolen items. (ECF No. 35.) That

1

appraisal is now complete.

(ECF No. 42.)

AAIC asserts that following the

2

completion of the appraisal, it paid Dickey the full appraised value of his claim and

3

thus there is no longer any reason for this suit. (Id.) Accordingly, AAIC wishes to lift

4

the stay and recalendar the motion to dismiss previously pending before the Court

5

issued its order to compel appraisal. (See ECF No. 33.) AAIC indicates that it has not

6

heard from Plaintiff regarding its request to recalendar. (ECF No. 42.) Before

7

considering AAIC’s request to recalendar, and in light of the new facts presented in

8

AAIC request, the Court first wants Plaintiff to explain why this case should not be

9

dismissed outright as the policy appears to have fully paid the relevant claim.

10

Accordingly, the Court issues an order to show cause why this action should not

11

be dismissed as moot. Plaintiff shall submit a response no later than January 3, 2017.

12

Failure to respond by that date will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice

13

without further warning from the Court. The stay shall remain in place until that time.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

December 15, 2016

17
18
19

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2