Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al v. Centex Homes

Filing 172

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE: CONSOLIDATION OR STAY OF RELATED CASES. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 4/25/2013. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2013)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA,

6
Plaintiff,
7
v.
8

10
Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

CENTEX HOMES, NEWMEYER &
DILLION, and DOES 1 through 10
inclusive,

11
12

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15
16
17

CENTEX HOMES, NEWMEYER &
DILLION, RGL INC., RGL
FORENSICS, and DOES 1 through 10
inclusive,

18
19
20
21

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, FIDELITY &
GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, THE
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
CONNECTICUT, and ST. PAUL MERCURY
INSURANCE COMPANY,

22

Plaintiffs,

23

v.

24
25

CENTEX HOMES and DOES 1 through
10 inclusive,

26

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

27
28

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Nos. 11-3638-SC, 1200371-SC, 13-00088-SC
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

1

Case Numbers 12-00371-SC and 13-00088-SC were recently related

2

to another case currently pending before the undersigned, Case

3

Number 11-3638-SC.

4

Rule 12 motions filed in Case Numbers 12-00371-SC and 13-00088-SC.

5

Many of the briefs filed in connection with these motions were

6

submitted before these three cases were related and assigned to the

7

undersigned.

8

claims or counterclaims should be dismissed or stricken because

9

they are duplicative of claims or counterclaims filed in: (1) Case

Now pending before the Court are five separate

In these motions, the parties argue that various

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Number 11-3638-SC, (2) another suit between Travelers and Centex

11

currently pending before Judge Virginia A. Phillips in the United

12

States District Court for the Central District of California, Case

13

No. 12-00496, or (3) cross-complaints filed in various superior

14

courts throughout California.

15

these actions involve substantially similar claims or counterclaims

16

and the same underlying construction defect actions.

17

there is a high risk of inconsistent judgments.

18

duplicative nature of these actions could result in a waste of

19

judicial resources.

20

As the parties point out, many of

Accordingly,

Further, the

One way to deal with these problems would be to consolidate

21

all of the actions currently pending before this Court and stay

22

that consolidated case, either in whole or in part, pending a

23

decision on duplicative issues now before the California superior

24

courts, which are in the best position to rule on the issues of

25

California insurance law raised by these cases.

26

also consider transferring to this Court Case Number 12-00496, the

27

case currently pending before Judge Phillips in the Central

28

District, for the purposes of consolidation.

2

The parties may

The parties have

1

represented that Case Number 12-00496 is on the verge of

2

settlement.

3

pending for almost four months and the parties have yet to

4

consummate an agreement.

5

2013 deadline for consummation of the settlement agreement, and

6

there is no indication that there has been any movement on the

7

issue in the last month.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

Indeed, Judge Phillips set a March 20,

The Court hereby requests supplemental briefing on the issues

8
9

But the stipulated settlement in that action has been

discussed above from Travelers and Centex.

Specifically, Travelers

and Centex shall:
•

Provide the Court with a succinct summary of all litigation

12

between Travelers and Centex currently pending in California

13

state and federal courts.

14

the identity of the court before which each action is

15

pending, (2) the case number, (3) the underlying

16

construction defect actions involved, (4) a description of

17

the claims and counterclaims asserted by Travelers and

18

Centex in each of the actions, and (5) an assessment of the

19

procedural posture of each case (e.g., have the parties

20

completed discovery, filed dispositive motions, etc.).

21

•

This summary shall include: (1)

Advise the Court on their position on the consolidation of

22

some or all of the federal litigation between Travelers and

23

Centex, as well as whether any of the cases currently

24

pending before the Court should be stayed in whole or in

25

part.

26

•

Advise the Court on how the relation of Case Numbers 11-

27

3638-SC, 12-00371-SC, and 13-00088-SC affects their pending

28

motions to dismiss and strike, if at all.

3

The parties shall

1

also advise the Court on how consolidation of these actions

2

would affect their pending motions.

3

•

Update the Court on the status of their settlement

4

negotiations in Case Number 12-00496 and address whether

5

they would be amenable to transferring that case to this

6

Court for consolidation with the Case Numbers 11-3638-SC,

7

12-00371-SC, and 13-00088-SC.

8

•

Identify any prior orders issued by any court that addressed
the contention that any of the claims or counterclaims

9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

asserted in Case Numbers 11-3638-SC, 12-00371-SC, and 13-

11

00088-SC are duplicative of claims asserted in any other

12

action.

13

for each reference.

14

•

The parties shall provide docket and page numbers

Suggest trial dates and other relevant case management dates

15

for each of the cases currently pending before the Court and

16

address whether consolidation or a full or partial stay

17

would result in an undue delay.

18

The other parties to these actions, including Newmeyer & Dillion,

19

RGL Inc., and RGL Forensics, are not required to submit

20

supplemental briefing, but may do so if they wish.

21

brief shall not exceed twenty (20) pages and shall be submitted

22

within ten (10) days of the signature date of this Order.

Each party's

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated: April 25, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

4