Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. JDS Builders Group, Inc.

Filing 12

RELATED CASE ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/28/14 relating this case with member case 2:13-cv-02495. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 No. 2:13-cv-02228-GEB-AC RELATED CASE ORDER v. JDS BUILDERS GROUP, INC., a California corporation, 12 Defendant. 13 14 SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation, 15 16 17 18 19 No. 2:13-cv-02495-JAM-AC Plaintiff, v. JDS Builders Group, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Scottsdale Insurance Company filed a “Notice of Related Cases” in which it states: This case is related to Scottsdale Insurance Company v. JDS Builders Group, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-02495-JAM-AC, which was filed in this District on December 2, 2013 (the “Scottsdale Matter”). In the Scottsdale Matter, Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”) filed a declaratory relief suit against its insured, JDS Builders Group, Inc. (“JDS”). Scottsdale alleges, inter alia, that JDS has no right to 1 1 Cumis Counsel or right to refuse an insurer controlled defense in the underlying action styled Doe v. Siracusa, California Superior Court, Yolo County, Case No. P013-182 (the “Underlying Action”). The Scottsdale Matter is assigned to the Honorable John A. Mendez. 2 3 4 The current suit involves the same defendant, JDS, as well as issues concerning Cumis Counsel and an insurer-controlled defense of that defendant in the Underlying Action. Because the instant matter and the Scottsdale Matter arise out of the same Underlying Action, involve the same defendant, JDS, and involve similar facts and/or issues, Scottsdale believes that reassignment of the Scottsdale Matter to Judge Burrell (who is presiding over the instant matter) would conserve judicial resources and otherwise further the goal of judicial economy. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (Notice of Related Case 2:3-23, ECF No. 11.) 13 Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that 14 they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123. Under the 15 regular 16 assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first 17 filed action was assigned. 18 reassigned to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., and Magistrate Judge 19 Allison 20 currently set in the reassigned case is VACATED. Henceforth the 21 caption on documents filed in the reassigned case shall show the 22 initials “GEB-AC.” practice Claire of for this all Court, related cases are generally Therefore, Case No. 2:13-cv-02495 is further proceedings, and any date 23 Further, a Status Conference is scheduled in Case No. 24 2:13-cv-02495 before the undersigned judge on March 3, 2014, at 25 9:00 a.m. A joint status report shall be filed no later than 26 fourteen (14) days prior.1 27 1 28 The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in the preparation of the Joint Status Report does not excuse the other parties from their obligation to timely file a status report in accordance with this Order. 2 1 The Clerk of the Court shall make appropriate 2 adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for 3 this reassignment. 4 Dated: January 28, 2014 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In the event a party fails to participate as ordered, the party timely submitting the status report shall include a declaration explaining why it was unable to obtain the cooperation of the other party or parties. 3

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?