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