Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Chevron USA, Inc. et al

Filing 30

ORDER DISCHARGING the Order to Show Cause, document 27 . The docket will reflect that the case has not settled and counsel shall proceed expect discovery, as referenced in this Order, and the remainder of the case as scheduled, without modification. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/14/2014. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, a corporation,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

v.
CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. and KVS
TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Defendants.

17

Case No.: 1:13-CV-00826 - LJO – JLT

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE

As noted in its April 2, 2014 order to show cause, on March 13, 2014, the Court conducted

18
19

a settlement conference at which the parties agreed upon settlement terms. (Doc. 26) The only

20

impediment was that Defendants’ counsel, Mr. Braze, had to obtain final settlement authority

21

because the agreed amount exceeded the authority that he had been given. 1 Id. Mr. Braze

22

represented that he would recommend settlement on the terms agreed upon. Id.
At that time, the Court understood—maybe through its own error—that the likelihood that

23
24
1

25
26
27
28

Counsel for Defendants indicated that due to various reasons, he could not obtain an acceptance of the settlement
agreement from the claims representative with whom he had prior contact. (Doc. 29 at 3) Likewise, he explained that
since the settlement conference, he learned from the claims representative that the insured, now owned by a different
corporation, must also approve the settlement. Id. This process has not succeeded. Id. Clearly, all of this would have
been avoided—or, at least, all of this information would have been known—had the claims representative been present
at the settlement conference as ordered. At this time, the Court does not impose sanctions for the violation of the
Court’s orders that this person be present (Doc. 18 at 6) but does not preclude Plaintiff from filing a motion against
Defendants to seek to recover Plaintiff’s costs of attending the settlement conference. The Court makes no comment
as to the wisdom or propriety of such a motion.

1

1

Defendants would not be guided by counsel’s recommendation was minute; it now appears that

2

this is not the case. (Doc. 29) Indeed, it appears that there is no certainty, even, as to the particular

3

employees of the new owners of KV Transportation who have the authority to determine whether

4

this matter will settle. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

5

1.

The order to show cause (Doc. 27), is DISCHARGED;

6

2.

The docket will reflect that the case HAS NOT SETTLED and counsel SHALL

7

proceed with expert discovery2 and the remainder of the case as scheduled without modification.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated:

April 14, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

During the period when Mr. Braze sought to obtain the required settlement authority, the non-expert discovery
period expired.

2