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)
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?