Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut et al v. Centex Homes et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER re Defendants' 18 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/29/15. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF
CONNECTICUT, et al.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS (DOC. 18)
CENTEX HOMES, et al.,
Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.
Doc. 18. The Court did not set a hearing for the motion and the parties did not request one. The Court
finds it appropriate to rule on the motion without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g).
This case is one of many between the parties currently pending in this Court and elsewhere. The
Court already has ruled on Defendant s’ motions to dismiss in other cases between the parties that often
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
Homes, 1:14-cv-826-LJO-GSA, 2014 WL 4075999 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014); Travelers Prop. Cas. Co.
of Am. v. Centex Homes, No. 1:14-cv-1450-LJO-GSA, Doc. 23 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2014); Fidelity &
Guar. Ins. Co. v. Centex Homes, 14-cv-826-LJO-GSA, 2014 WL 5823048 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2014);
see also St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Centex Homes, No. ED CV14–01216 AB (JCx), 2014 WL
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).
The Court has reviewed the papers and finds that the Court’s prior orders resolve the issues
presented in Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. See generally Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co. v. Centex
Homes, 1:14-cv-826-LJO-GSA, 2014 WL 4075999 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014); St. Paul Fire & Marine
Ins. Co. v. Centex Homes, No. ED CV14–01216 AB (JCx), 2014 WL 5013062 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2014).
As the Court explained approximately seven weeks ago, “[t]his is not a news brief to counsel—the
counsel of record for Plaintiffs in all these cases is the same law firm.” St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
1:14-cv-1384-LJO-GSA, Doc. 28 at 2. The Court noted that “instead of requesting leave to amend
consistent with the other orders and the cited law,” counsel for Plaintiffs “simply encourages (through
inaction) to request of this Court that it waste precious judicial resources.” Counsel for Plaintiffs
continues to do so in this case. Again, “[n]otice is given that counsel may wish to expend its time either
to consider this suggestion or review Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id.
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.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
January 29, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?