Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut et al v. Centex Homes et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 20 signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on August 19, 2014. (Munoz, I)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT AND TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, 8 9 10 11 1:14-CV-451-LJO-GSA MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 20) Plaintiffs, v. CENTEX HOMES, et al., Defendants. 12 13 This case concerns a dispute between the parties concerning their rights and duties in an 14 underlying action currently pending in Kings County Superior Court (“the Numi action”). Defendants 15 Centex Homes and Centex Real Estate Corporation (“Centex”) construct residential homes throughout 16 California. Plaintiffs are insurance providers and provided insurance to one of Centex’s subcontractors, 17 with Centex named as an additional insured under the policy (“the insurance policy”). 18 Currently before the Court is Centex’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ third cause of action in their 19 first amended complaint (Doc. 18 (“FAC”)). Doc. 20. The Court has reviewed the papers and has 20 determined that the matter is suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 21 This case is one of many between the parties currently pending in this Court and elsewhere. The 22 Court has already issued multiple orders in these cases. See, e.g., Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut v. 23 Centex Homes, No. 1:14-cv-217-LJO-GSA, 2014 WL 3778269 (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2014) (“the Travelers 24 case”). The Court has reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions in their entirety and finds that the 25 material facts of the Travelers case and the arguments Centex made in support of its motion to dismiss 26 in that case are essentially identical to those involved in this case. That is, the Court finds that the Order 1 1 granting Centex’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for equitable reimbursement in the 2 Travelers case is directly applicable to Centex’s motion to dismiss here. 3 As explained in the Travelers case, to state a claim for equitable reimbursement, Plaintiffs must 4 allege that they agreed to defend Centex immediately upon its tender of the Numi action to Plaintiffs. 5 Although Plaintiffs allege that they agreed to defend Centex in the Numi action, see FAC at 14, the FAC 6 provides no facts as to when Centex tendered the Numi action or when Plaintiffs agreed to defend 7 Centex in that case. In the absence of any clear allegation that Plaintiffs immediately agreed to defend 8 Centex in the Numi action, Plaintiffs’ equitable reimbursement claim fails. 9 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Centex’s motion to dismiss 10 Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for equitable reimbursement (Doc. 20). Any amended complaint shall be 11 file on or before August 29, 2014. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill August 19, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?