Integon Preferred Insurance Company v. Shahid Butt, et al.

Filing 37

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why This Matter Should Not be Transferred to the Sacramento Division of This Court, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/17/2018. (The parties are directed to show cause within seven (7) days as to why this action should n ot be transferred to the Sacramento division of the court. Alternately, the parties may file a stipulation transferring the action to the Sacramento division. See L.R. 120(f). The hearing on the 26 motion to stay is vacated pending resolution of the appropriate venue for this action.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

INTEGON PREFERRED INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

No. 1:17-cv-01302-DAD-EPG

v.
SHAHID BUTT, individually and doing
business as TRIPLE S COURIER
SERVICE; EXPRESS MESSENGER
SYSTEMS, INC. doing business as
ONTRAC; SUBCONTRACTING
CONCEPTS (CT), LLC; MICHAEL
FERRY; SIKANDERJIT KAUR; STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY; and
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
MATTER SHOULD NOT BE
TRANSFERRED TO THE SACRAMENTO
DIVISION OF THIS COURT

Defendants.

19
20
21

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

22

Cross-claimant,

23
24
25
26

v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Cross-defendant.

27
28
1

1

This diversity action commenced on September 28, 2017, with the filing of a complaint by

2

plaintiff, seeking to resolve liability issues between it and the named defendants. (Doc. No. 1.)

3

On December 18, 2017, defendant Butt filed a motion to stay this matter pending resolution of a

4

state court proceeding to which it relates. (Doc. No. 26.) All defendants save defendant Ferry

5

have joined in that the motion. (Doc. Nos. 29, 31–33, 35.) Plaintiff Integon Preferred Insurance

6

Company filed an opposition to the motion to stay on January 9, 2018. (Doc. No. 34.) Defendant

7

Butt filed a reply on January 16, 2018. (Doc. No. 36.) The motion was set for hearing before this

8

court on January 23, 2018. (Doc. No. 27.)

9

The complaint in this matter alleges that plaintiff insured three specific vehicles with

10

defendant Butt listed as a driver as of May 2015. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 11.) Defendant Butt averred in

11

his insurance application that he did not regularly lease or rent the vehicles to others. (Id. at

12

¶ 12.) Defendant Kaur was driving a van on June 9, 2015 when she was involved in an

13

automobile accident with defendant Ferry in Fairfield, California. (Id. at ¶ 20.) A dispute

14

between defendants Kaur and Ferry was settled on February 4, 2016 for the limits of Kaur’s

15

automobile insurance policy from State Farm. (Id.) A complaint was subsequently filed by

16

defendant Ferry, which now proceeds in Solano County Superior Court against Express

17

Messenger Systems, Inc., dba OnTrac, Triple S Courier Services, and Subcontracting Concepts

18

(CT), LLC. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Plaintiff’s complaint seeks rescission of its contract with defendant

19

Butt for misrepresentations made in the insurance application (id. at ¶¶ 24–27) and seeks

20

declaratory relief that it has no duty to indemnify or defend any parties in the state court lawsuit

21

(id. at ¶¶ 28–53). It also seeks a declaration of its rights under the California Vehicle Code and

22

reimbursement for any amounts paid. (Id. at ¶¶ 54–66.)

23

Pursuant to Local Rule 120, all actions arising in Solano County shall be commenced in

24

the United States District Court sitting in Sacramento. See L.R. 120(d). Further, if the court finds

25

upon its own motion that the action has not been commenced in the proper court in accordance

26

with this rule, the court “may transfer the action to another venue within the District.” L.R.

27

120(f). This case concerns an automobile accident that took place in Fairfield, California, which

28

is a city in Solano County, California, as well as a lawsuit pending in the Solano County Superior
2

1

Court. Therefore, it appears this matter should be transferred to the Sacramento division of this

2

court. The parties are directed to show cause within seven (7) days as to why this action should

3

not be transferred to the Sacramento division of the court. Alternately, the parties may file a

4

stipulation transferring the action to the Sacramento division. See L.R. 120(f).

5

The hearing on the motion to stay (Doc. No. 26) is vacated pending resolution of the

6

appropriate venue for this action.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:

January 17, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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