RCMC, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company

Filing 14

ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White GRANTING 13 Stipulation and 11 Motion to Relate Case. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2006)

Download PDF
RCMC, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company g& Doc. 14 Case 3:06-cv-00839-JSW Case 3:06-cv-00839-JSW Document 14 Document 12 Filed 02/23/2006 Filed 02/24/2006 Page 1 of 6 Page 1 of 6 1 MICHAEL C. PHILLIPS APC (Bar No. 48473) LISA L. COPLEN (Bar No. 142726) 2 ANDERSON, McPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP Thirty- First Floor 444 South Flower Street Los Angeles, California 90071-2901 4 TELEPHONE: (213) 688-0080. FACSIMILE: (213) 622-7594 mcp amclaw .com llc amclaw .com Attorneys for Defendant, WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY erroneously sued as WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY also known as 8 ACE WESTCHESTER SPECIALTY GROUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT :J g 'J 11 .Io u. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRACISCO DIVISION I- en I b(i (I f- 13 RCMC, INC. , also known as RAINOW CONSTRUCTION vs. Case No. C 06-00839-JSW IE Ii a: u. f2. j Ii a: U 0 g Plaintiff 16 WESTCHESTER SURLUS LINS INSURANCE COMPANY also known as 17 ACE WESTCHESTER SPECIALTY GROUP , DOES 1 through 50, inclusive Defendants. ui9 I-q: STIPULATION IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED (L.R. 3- 12(b), 7- 11) o .. en 5 (IN Filed concurrently with Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related and Proposed Order 21 TO THIS HONORABLE COURT: RECITALS PlaintiffRCMC , INC. , also known as RAINOW CONSTRUCTION ("RCMC" 25 filed this action on December 14 2005 , in the California Superior Cour for the County of 26 Mendocino, Ukiah Branch, naming WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINS INSURNCE 27 COMP ANY ("WESTCHESTER" (erroneously sued as being also known as Ace Westchester 28 580327. 15494. 098 Specialty Group), as defendant. This Complaint alleges various causes of action arising out of C 06-00839-JSW STIPULATION IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED Dockets.Justia.com 5 2 Case 3:06-cv-00839-JSW Case 3:06-cv-00839-JSW Document 14 Document 12 Filed 02/23/2006 Filed 02/24/2006 Page 2 of 6 Page 2 of 6 1 WESTCHESTER's denial of a claim for insurance benefits relating to water damage sustained in a building at the Mendocino College campus. RCMC was the general contractor who repaired the water damage and contends that it is entitled to receipt of said benefits under the insurance policy issued to Mendocino-Lake Communty College District. On February 8 , 2006, WESTCHESTER removed this lawsuit to the States District 6 Cour for the Northern District of California based on diversity jurisdiction. The case now bears case no. C 06-00839-JSW and has been assigned to Judge Jeffrey S. White in Department 2 of this Cour. On December 28 2005 , MENDOCINO-LAK COMMITY COLLEGE of -- 0 v .. 0 ff a: a: I N ~ b (i J: en 10 DISTRICT ("MENDOCINO") filed an action in the Californa Superior Cour for the County 11 Mendocino, Ukiah Branch, naming WESTCHESTER SURLUS 12 LINS INSURANCE COMP ANY (" WESTCHESTER" (erroneously sued as being also known as Ace Westchester Specialty Group), II ~ co a:0~ (I IIE 13 as defendant. This Complaint also alleges various causes of action arising out 14 of Westchester s denial ofthe claim for insurance benefits relating to the water damage sustained at Mendocino s property. On February 8 , 2006, WESTCHESTER also removed this action, based on j Ii ~ g UW a:Uo J:Z 15 o .. en 17 diversity jurisdiction, to the United States District Cour for the Northern District of California. The case now bears case no. C 06-00840-WHA and has been assigned to Judge Wiliam Alsup in Department 9 of this Court. The referenced actions concern substantially the same paries, property, 18 19 21 transactions and events. They both seek policy benefits, equitable relief and other damages based 22 on the common assertion that WESTCHESTER owes insurance coverage under the policy issued 23 to MENDOCINO for the water damage sustained at the school building. As a result, the factual 24 and legal issues concernng coverage wil be the same in both cases. 27 8 80327.1 5494. 098 STIPULATION IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED C 06-00839-JSW LRW OFF I CE5 FEB-22-2006 08: Case 3:06-cv-00839-JSW Case 3:06-cv-00839-JSW Document 14 Document 12 50 MURPHY Filed 02/23/2006 Filed 02/24/2006 Page 3 of 6 Page 3 of 6 4087320709 If the cases are not related, ths wil result in a duplication of efforts by thc paries and place an extra and unnecessary burden on the Court by requirng two judges to separately admnister the separate but substantially similar matters. Further, there is a risk of conflcting judicial detenninations if the cases remai unelated and proceed before two different District Court Judges. STIPULA TION Based on the above recitals , the pares who have appeared in this action, and in the of 9 MENDOCINO action, through their respective attorneys of record , hereby stipulate to the entr 10 an Order which deems Case No. C 06.00839- .TSW Ii .. UI and Case No. C 06- 00840- WHA related and 8 g 11 &;0- which requires the followig administrative action: Case No. C 06- 00839.JSW shall stand as the lead case. No. C 06- 00839- JSW, All furher matters shall be fied under the caption for Case 14 with a notation stating that Case No. C 06. 00840- WHA is related thereto. 16 DATED: February , 2006 RYAN STEINR & LEET DATED: February _ 2006 SCHOOL AND COLLEGE LEGAL SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA By: Noel J. Shumway Arhur A. Wick Attorneys for Plaintiff, MENDOCINO- LAKE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 5S0n7. 5494.098 STIPULATION IN SUPPORT OF ADMINTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED ' 5CL5 OF cA FEB-23-2006 12: Case 3:06-cv-00839-JSW Document 14 Case 3:06-cv-00839-JSW Document 12 707 578 0517 Filed 02/23/2006 Filed 02/24/2006 Page 4 of 6 Page 4 of 6 If the cases are not related , this wil result in a duplication of efforts by the parties and place an extra and unnecessary burden on the Cour by requiring two judges to separately administer the separte but substantial1y similar matters. Furter, there is a risk of conflcting judicial detenninations if the cases remain unrelated and proceed before two different Distrct 5 Cour Judges. STIPULATION Based on the above recitals, the paries who have appeared in this action, and in the 9 MENDOCINO action, through their respective attorneys of record , hereby stipulate to the entr of 10 an Order which dearos Case No. C 06- 00839- JSW and Case No. C 06-00840-WHA related and 11 which requires the following administrative action: Case No. C 06- 00839-JSW Q: '" '" shall stand as rhe lead case. All fuher matters shall be filed under the caption for Case No. C 06- 00839- JSW i 14 with a notation stating that Case No. C 06-00840- WHA is related thereto. 16 DATED: February _ 2006 RY AN STEINER & LEET 'b :a :z VJ .. 17 53-' Jeffey Ryan Attorneys for Plaintiff, RCMC, INC. also known as RABOW. CONSTRUCTION 21 DATED: February , 2006 SCHOOL AND COLLEGE LEGAL SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA BY: Noel 1. Shumway Arhur A. Wick Attorneys for Plaintiff, MENDOCINO-LAK COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 5803 218 49.3. 098 8031b. /U/ 5494. 098 STIPULATION IN SUPPORT OF ADMINJSTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED TOTRL P. 02 '" !: . Case 3:06-cv-00839-JSW Case 3:06-cv-00839-JSW Document 14 Document 12 Filed 02/23/2006 Filed 02/24/2006 Page 5 of 6 Page 5 of 6 1 DATED: February _ 2006 ANDERSON , McPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP By: Michael C. Philips APC Lisa L. Coplen Attorneys for Defendant, WESTC STER SURLUS LINES INSURNCE COMPANY erroneously sued as WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY also known as ACE WESTCHESTER SPECIALTY GROUP PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. ga C! 12 &! gj N Dated: February 24, 2006 WDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA O'(' ff ti Clu IE 009 "";;O ;1wco zC' CI w ga 6,g-= 17 580327. 1 5494. 098 STIPULATION IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIV MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED ,. ~ ~ .. g~~ ~. Case 3:06-cv-00839-JSW Case 3:06-cv-00839-JSW Document 14 Document 12 Filed 02/23/2006 Filed 02/24/2006 Page 6 of 6 Page 6 of 6 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a part to the withn action; my business address is Thirt-First Floor, 444 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, California 90071-2901. On February 23 2006 , I served the following document(s) described as STIPULATION IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES 6 SHOULD BE RELATED on the interested paries in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Noel J. Shumvvay Arhur A. Wick School and College Legal Services of California 5350 Skylane Boulevard Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Attorneys for Plaintiff in Case No. C 06-0840 WHA Related Action :J 0 v I- en I VJ II 0 I' a: I N II - co a: Telephone: (707) 524-2690 Facsimile: (707) 578-0517 ~b(i a: 0 ~ ff;i j Ii ~ g a:uo ~ui9 u.~co J-q:~ I: Z ~ 13 and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice , it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary 14 course of business. Such envelope(s) were placed for collection and mailing with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, Californa, on that same day following ordinary business practices. BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with Anderson, McPharlin & Conners ' practice for collecting o .. en 5 (IN 16 foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the offce of a member of the bar of this Cour at whose direction the service was made. Executed on February 23 2006 , at Los Angeles 17 California. I declare under penalty of perjur under the laws of the United States of America that the 580327.1 5494. 098 C 06-00839-JSW STIPULATION IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

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?