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)

Download PDF
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

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?