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)
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?