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

Filing 36

ORDER re Request for Dismissal, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/24/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

10
11
12
13

1:14-cv-793-LJO-BAM
ORDER RE REQUEST FOR
DISMISSAL (Doc. 29)

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

14
15
On February 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a request for this Court to dismiss without prejudice the
16
following claims asserted in their complaint against Defendants: (1) Plaintiffs’ “first, second, third,
17
fourth and fifth counts for declaratory relief regarding whether [Defendants] breached the cooperation
18
clause in the insurance policies”; (2) Plaintiffs’ “first, second, third, fourth, and fifth counts for breach of
19
contract”; and (3) Plaintiffs’ “cause of action for equitable reimbursement.” Doc. 29 at 2.
20
Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the Court ORDERS that
21
Plaintiffs’ following claims asserted in the FAC are DISMISSED without prejudice: (1) Plaintiffs’ “first,
22
second, third, fourth and fifth counts for declaratory relief regarding whether [Defendants] breached the
23
cooperation clause in the insurance policies”; (2) Plaintiffs’ “first, second, third, fourth, and fifth counts
24
for breach of contract”; and (3) Plaintiffs’ “cause of action for equitable reimbursement.”
25
The following claims originally asserted in the complaint remain outstanding: Plaintiffs’ first,
26
1

1

second, third, fourth, and fifth counts for declaratory relief regarding Defendants’ claimed entitlement to

2

independent counsel.

3

SO ORDERED
Dated: February 24, 2015

4

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2