Farmers Ins. Exchange et al v. PacifiCorp
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/7/2021 DENYING 9 Motion to Remand without prejudice as to refiling and DIRECTING plaintiffs to file an Amended Notice of Remand as to 15 Amended Notice of Removal; DENYING 8 Motion to Amend the Complaint without prejudice; DENYING 12 Motion for Judgment without prejudice; DENYING 14 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer without prejudice; DENYING 32 Motion to Strike without prejudice; DENYING 42 Motion for Leave to File a Response to Amicus Curiae without prejudice; and DENYING AS MOOT 17 Ex Parte Application to Extend Hearing Date. (Coll, A)
Case 2:21-cv-00801-MCE-CKD Document 44 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
The claims underlying Plaintiffs’ Complaint arise out of the “Slater Fire” that
burned through Northern California and Oregon in 2020. Plaintiffs initiated this action in
the Sacramento County Superior Court, after which Defendant removed the case here.
A number of filings are currently before this Court, including Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand
(ECF No. 9). After that Motion to Remand was filed, Defendant filed an Amended Notice
of Removal (ECF No. 15), which Defendant suggests moots Plaintiffs’ original remand
motion. In the meantime, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend their Complaint (ECF No. 8)
and Defendant filed a Motion to Amend its Answer (ECF No. 14) and a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 12). Defendant then filed a Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs’ Reply to the Motion to Remand (ECF No. 32) for raising arguments set forth in
Defendant’s Notice of Removal, but not argued in Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Remand. In the meantime, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application to Extend
Case 2:21-cv-00801-MCE-CKD Document 44 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2
Hearing Dates (ECF No. 17), and after the Court permitted a filing by Amicus Curiae,
Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to File a Response (ECF No. 42).
Given all of these moving parts, none of which should be addressed prior to
resolution of a properly briefed Motion for Remand, the Court hereby holds as follows:
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (ECF No. 9) is DENIED without prejudice as
to refiling. Not later than ten (10) days following the date this Order is electronically filed,
Plaintiffs shall file an Amended Notice of Remand as to Defendant’s Amended Notice of
Removal (ECF No. 15).
All of the following remaining motions are DENIED without prejudice to
renewal, if appropriate, once the Court has resolved Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 8);
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 12);
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer (ECF
Defendant’s Motion to Strike Reply (ECF No. 32)
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Response to Amicus Curiae
(ECF No. 42).
Finally, Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Extend Hearing Date (ECF
No. 17) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 7, 2021
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?