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

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER re Defendants' 18 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/29/15. (Marrujo, C)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF
CONNECTICUT, et al.,

6
7
8
9

1:14-cv-793-LJO-GSA
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS (DOC. 18)

Plaintiffs,
v.
CENTEX HOMES, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11
Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.
12
Doc. 18. The Court did not set a hearing for the motion and the parties did not request one. The Court
13
finds it appropriate to rule on the motion without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g).
14
This case is one of many between the parties currently pending in this Court and elsewhere. The
15
Court already has ruled on Defendant s’ motions to dismiss in other cases between the parties that often
16
are virtually identical to one another. See, e.g., Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Centex Homes, No. 1417
cv-217-LJO-GSA, 2014 WL 2002320 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2014); Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co. v. Centex
18
Homes, 1:14-cv-826-LJO-GSA, 2014 WL 4075999 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014); Travelers Prop. Cas. Co.
19
of Am. v. Centex Homes, No. 1:14-cv-1450-LJO-GSA, Doc. 23 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2014); Fidelity &
20
Guar. Ins. Co. v. Centex Homes, 14-cv-826-LJO-GSA, 2014 WL 5823048 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2014);
21
see also St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Centex Homes, No. ED CV14–01216 AB (JCx), 2014 WL
22
5013062 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2014); Doc. 24-1, Travelers Indemn. Co. of Conn. v. Centex Homes, 14-cv23
806 JGB SPx (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014).
24
The Court has reviewed the papers and finds that the Court’s prior orders resolve the issues
25
presented in Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. See generally Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co. v. Centex
26
1

1

Homes, 1:14-cv-826-LJO-GSA, 2014 WL 4075999 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014); St. Paul Fire & Marine

2

Ins. Co. v. Centex Homes, No. ED CV14–01216 AB (JCx), 2014 WL 5013062 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2014).

3

As the Court explained approximately seven weeks ago, “[t]his is not a news brief to counsel—the

4

counsel of record for Plaintiffs in all these cases is the same law firm.” St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,

5

1:14-cv-1384-LJO-GSA, Doc. 28 at 2. The Court noted that “instead of requesting leave to amend

6

consistent with the other orders and the cited law,” counsel for Plaintiffs “simply encourages (through

7

inaction) to request of this Court that it waste precious judicial resources.” Counsel for Plaintiffs

8

continues to do so in this case. Again, “[n]otice is given that counsel may wish to expend its time either

9

to consider this suggestion or review Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id.

10

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Centex’s motion to dismiss

11 Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (Doc. 18). Plaintiffs shall file any further amended complaint on or
12 before February 20, 2015.
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

January 29, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2