Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al v. Centex Homes
Filing
186
Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 183 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration.(sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
11
12
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, FIDELITY &
GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, THE
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
CONNECTICUT, AND ST. PAUL MERCURY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
13
Plaintiffs,
14
15
16
17
v.
CENTEX HOMES and DOES 1 through
10 inclusive,
18
19
CENTEX HOMES,
20
21
Counterclaimant,
v.
22
23
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al.,
24
Counterdefendant.
25
26
27
28
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 11-3638-SC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
1
Now before the Court is Defendant Centex Homes' ("Centex")
2
motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
3
("Mot.").
4
Order on the Centex and Travelers Property Casualty Company of
5
America's ("Travelers") cross-motions for summary judgment, ECF No.
6
170 ("April 2013 Order").
7
May 10, 2012 Order, ECF No. 56 ("May 2012 Order"), which granted
8
prior motions by Centex for partial summary judgment and judgment
9
on the pleadings.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
ECF No. 183
Centex asks the Court to reconsider its April 8, 2013
The April 2013 Order vacated in part a
Centex argues that the Court inadvertently vacated its prior
11
ruling on Centex's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.
12
Mot. at 5-6.
13
May 2012 Order, but the conclusion of the April 2013 Order could be
14
read that way.
15
May 2012 ruling on Centex's motion for judgment on the pleadings
16
remains in effect.
17
The Court did not intend to vacate that aspect of its
Accordingly, the Court hereby clarifies that its
In the May 2012 Order, the Court held that Travelers waived
18
its right to control Centex's defense in the Adkins and Garvey
19
actions when it initially declined to participate in the defense of
20
those actions.
21
that aspect) of the May 2012 Order.
22
holding was in error.
23
to file a motion for reconsideration on this issue.
24
The April 2013 Order vacated that aspect (and only
Centex argues that this
The Court GRANTS Centex's motion for leave
Centex shall file and notice its motion for reconsideration in
25
accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.
26
motion should address the California Court of Appeal's holding in
27
Stalberg v. Western Title Insurance Company, 282 Cal. App. 3d 1223
28
(1991), as well as any relevant distinctions among Travelers'
2
The parties' briefing on the
1
responses to the tenders of the Acupan, Adkins, Conner, and Garvey
2
actions.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
Dated: May 29, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?