St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company v. Centex Homes, et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM Decision and ORDER re Defendant's 12 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/20/2014. Plaintiffs Shall File Any Amended Complaint Within 20 Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE
COMPANY,

6

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS (DOC. 11)

Plaintiff,

7
8

1:14-CV-244-LJO-GSA

v.
CENTEX HOMES, et al.,

9

Defendants.

10
11
This case concerns a dispute between the parties concerning their rights and duties in an
12
underlying action currently pending in Kern County Superior Court. Defendants Centex Homes and
13
Centex Real Estate Corporation (“Centex”) constructs residential homes throughout California. St. Paul
14
Mercury Insurance Company (“St. Paul”) is an insurance provider and provided insurance to one of
15
Centex’s subcontractors, with Centex named as an additional insured under the policy (“the insurance
16
policy”).
17
Centex has been the defendant in a number of cases currently pending in this Court and
18
elsewhere concerning lawsuits over alleged construction defects in the homes Centex has been involved
19
in building and the insurance policies insuring the construction of those homes. St. Paul brought this suit
20
due to Centex’s alleged breach of one of those insurance policies. See Doc. 9 at 1. Likewise, Travelers
21
Indemnity Company of Connecticut (“Travelers”) brought suit against Centex in this Court for the exact
22
same reasons as St. Paul. Centex moved to dismiss Travelers’s complaint, which this Court denied on
23
May 15, 2014. See Travelers v. Centex, No. 14-CV-217, 2014 WL 2002320 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2014)
24
(“the Travelers case”).
25
Centex has also moved to dismiss St. Paul’s complain in its entirety. The Court has reviewed the
26
1

1

record and the parties’ submissions in their entirety and finds that the materials facts of the Travelers

2

case and the arguments Centex made in support of its motion to dismiss that case are essentially

3

identical to those involved in this case. That is, the Court finds that the Order denying Centex’s motion

4

to dismiss in the Travelers case is directly applicable to Centex’s motion to dismiss here.

5

For the reasons more thoroughly discussed in the Court’s May 15, 2014 Order in the Travelers

6

case, Centex’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the

7

Court DENIES Centex’s motion to dismiss St. Paul’s first and second causes of action and GRANTS

8

Centex’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s third cause of action. Plaintiffs shall file any amended complaint

9

within 20 days of electronic service of this order, but will be given only one chance to do so if it wishes.

10 This Court is not, and should not be, a service for writing pleadings for parties by having to rule on
11 pleading decisions more than once.
12

The May 29, 2014 hearing date is VACATED.

13
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

May 20, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2