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

Filing 31

ORDER after the Status Conference DIRECTING the parties to file a joint statement addressing the areas outlined in this Order, to be filed no later than 9/17/2014. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/5/2014. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14

ST. PAUL MERCERY INSURANCE CO.
a Connecticut , Co. and TRAVELERS
INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
CONNECTICUT, a Connecticut Co.,
Plaintiffs,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

No. 1:14-cv-244-LJO-GSA

ORDER AFTER STATUS CONFERENCE
v.
CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada General
Partnership and CENTEX REAL ESTATE
CO, a Nevada Corporation,
Defendants.
A status conference was held in this case on August 27, 2014 to discuss this case, as well
as the management of several of the pending related cases. (Doc. 30). Angela Zanin-Wog
appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiffs Saint Paul Mercury Insurance Company and

23
24
25
26
27

Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut. Jeffrey Hayes personally appeared on behalf of
Centex Homes and Centex Real Estate Corporation.
At the hearing, it was noted that these parties (or related parties) have filed fourteen cases
in this district. The Court was advised that the parties anticipate filing several other cases. In

28
1

1

order to facilitate the formulation of a case management strategy to best handle these cases, the

2

parties shall file a joint statement no later than September 17, 2014, addressing the following

3

areas :

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1) Provide an overview of the issues presented in this litigation including a
comprehensive list of all the cases filed in this district. Additionally, the parties shall
identify how many cases that have been filed in both state and federal courts
nationally and in California (to the best of their knowledge), as well as how many new
cases the parties anticipate filing (or removing) in this district. For the cases in this
district, identify any related state proceedings, and indicate whether the issue of
attorney representation for Centex, or other parallel issues are presented in each of
these cases. If parallel proceedings exist, identify the court and the case number, as
well as an explanation outlining the status of each state case;
2) The parties indicated that resolution of the main issue in this litigation will likely be
dependent on a ruling from a California appellate court or the Ninth Circuit. Outline
the applicable case law and explain how the lack of controlling authority impacts this
litigation. The parties shall address whether some or all of these cases should be
stayed pending the issuance of a decision from a state appellate court or the Ninth
Circuit;
3) Given the above, each party shall state its position regarding the preferred method of
the Court’s management of these cases. At the hearing, the parties indicated that
consolidation of the cases would not be feasible because each case has unique facts
that require individualized analysis. However, the parties shall indicate whether
relation, or grouping of the cases based on common issues or procedural posture,
would be appropriate In doing so, the parties shall be mindful that this Court carries
one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation;
4) The parties shall indicate the amount and the type of discovery that is anticipated in
the presently filed cases. Explain whether any points of contention exist in the
discovery context, and outline the parties’ history with regard to the resolution of the
discovery disputes; and
5) Finally, the parties shall specifically address the likelihood of settling the cases that
have been filed in this district. As part of this analysis, the parties shall indicate
whether a settlement conference addressing a single case versus a global settlement
format would be most effective. If the former is true, the parties shall identify a
specific case to begin the settlement discussions, and shall also provide three mutually
agreeable dates to hold a settlement conference.

26
Failure to timely file the joint statement may result in the imposition of sanctions. Upon a
27
28

review of the joint statement, the Court will issue an order advising the parties of the next step in
2

1

this litigation.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated:

September 5, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3