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