Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al v. Centex Homes
Filing
232
ORDER re (231 in 3:11-cv-03638-SC) Statement filed by Centex Homes. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 8/18/2015. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
9
10
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
CONNECTICUT; and ST. PAUL FIRE
AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,
11
12
13
Plaintiffs,
v.
CENTEX HOMES; and CENTEX REAL
ESTATE CORPORATION,
14
Defendants.
15
16
) Case No. 11-CV-03638-SC
)
) RESPONSE TO STATUS REPORT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
17
18
19
On December 13, 2013, the Court granted Defendants' motion to
20
stay this case pending the outcome of the California Supreme
21
Court's decision in Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. J.R. Mktg., L.L.C.,
22
No. S211645, 2015 WL 4716917 (Cal. Aug. 10, 2015).
23
On August 102, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its
24
Opinion.
25
ECF No. 224.
On August 17, 2015, the parties filed a joint status report
26
requesting a status conference to discuss what actions may need to
27
be taken in light of the California Supreme Court's decision.
28
No. 231.
Plaintiffs' position is that additional briefing is
ECF
2013 ruling on Centex's motion for reconsideration.
3
position is that any party who believes J.R. Marketing affects a
4
ruling of this Court should bring a motion for leave to file a
5
motion for reconsideration consistent with Local Rule 7-9(a).
6
Court agrees with Centex's position and finds that a status
7
conference at this time is unnecessary.
8
United States District Court
needed on the effect of J.R. Marketing on this Court's August 26,
2
For the Northern District of California
1
should file a motion for reconsideration.
Centex's
The
Accordingly, Plaintiffs
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
Dated: August 18, 2015
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?