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