Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al v. Centex Homes
Filing
55
ORDER REGARDING VENUE.. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 5/3/2012. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2012)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
11
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut
corporation; FIDELITY & GUARANTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa
corporation; THE TRAVELERS
INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT,
a Connecticut corporation, ST.
PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Minnesota corporation,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
15
16
CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada
partnership; and DOES 1 through
10 inclusive,
Defendant.
17
) Case No. 11-3638-SC
)
) ORDER REGARDING VENUE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
18
19
20
I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Centex Homes ("Centex"), a general contractor and
21
home-builder, is a named insured under a number of general
22
liability policies issued by the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned
23
matter.
24
them to control Centex's defense in a number of construction defect
25
actions which Centex had tendered under its policies.
26
four of these actions were filed in courts that lie within the
27
boundaries of the Eastern District of California (the "Eastern
28
District").
Plaintiffs filed this action when Centex refused to allow
At least
None were filed in courts that lie in the Northern
1
District of California (the "Northern District").
On April 23,
2
2012, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why venue lies in
3
the Northern District rather than the Eastern District.
4
("Order").
5
Company of America ("Travelers") filed briefs in response.
6
Nos. 53 ("Centex Response"); 54 ("Travelers Response").
7
parties contend that venue is proper in the Northern District,
8
though Travelers argues that venue would also be proper in the
9
Eastern District.
ECF No. 52
Centex and Plaintiff Travelers Property Casualty
ECF
Both
Having reviewed the parties' arguments, the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Court is satisfied that venue is proper in the Northern District
11
and declines to transfer the case.
12
13
II.
DISCUSSION
14
Venue is proper in "a judicial district in which any defendant
15
resides" or "a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
16
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred."
17
§§ 1391(b)(1)-(2).
18
corporation such as Centex:
19
20
21
22
23
28 U.S.C.
With respect to determining the residence of a
For purposes of venue . . ., in a State which has more
than one judicial district and in which a defendant that
is a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction at
the time an action is commenced, such corporation shall
be deemed to reside in any district in that State within
which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to
personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate
State, and, if there is no such district, the corporation
shall be deemed to reside in the district within which it
has the most significant contacts.
24
25
Id. § 1391(d).
26
In this case, Centex may be considered a resident of the
27
Northern District since it maintains the requisite minimum contacts
28
with the area.
According to both Centex and Travelers, Centex
2
1
builds homes throughout California, including in the Northern
2
District.
3
example, according to Travelers, at the time this action commenced,
4
Centex was actively involved in the construction and sale of new
5
homes in the Meadows Development at Magnolia Park in Oakley,
6
California, which is located in the Northern District.
7
Response at 1-2.
8
9
Centex Response at 2; Travelers Response at 1-2.
For
Travelers
The Court notes that Centex may also be considered a resident
of the Eastern District as it has been involved in the construction
See Centex
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
of at least four developments in that district.
11
Response at 1.
12
Centex for construction defects in state court, giving rise to the
13
instant action.
14
the Eastern District.
Centex concedes as much in its brief.
15
Centex Response at 3.
However, the issue before the Court is not
16
whether Centex has more contacts with the Eastern District or the
17
Northern District.
18
in the Northern District is proper.
19
The residents of these developments later sued
Thus, Centex clearly has stronger contacts with
Rather, the pertinent inquiry is whether venue
The Court finds that it is.
Travelers also argues that a substantial portion of the events
20
that gave rise to its claims arose in the Northern District since
21
Centex's attorneys, Newmeyer & Dillon ("Newmeyer"), tendered the
22
underlying actions from their office in Walnut Creek, California.
23
Travelers Response at 3.
24
central issues in this case are: (1) whether Centex has the right
25
to retain Newmeyer as it counsel in the tendered actions; and (2)
26
whether Plaintiffs waived their right to appoint Centex's counsel
27
by initially refusing to accept these tenders.
28
substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims and
This argument also has merit.
3
Two of the
Accordingly, a
1
counterclaims at issue occurred in Newmeyer's offices in the
2
Northern District.
3
4
5
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court holds that venue in the Northern
6
District of California is proper and declines to transfer this case
7
to the Eastern District of California.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
Dated: May 3, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?