Travelers Property Casualty Company of American v. Centex Homes et al
Filing
185
ORDER granting 184 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Stay Case filed by Centex Homes, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP. Status Report due by 5/24/2016. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 4/28/2016. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2016)
1 PAYNE & FEARS LLP
Scott S. Thomas, Bar No. 106720
2 sst@paynefears.com
J. Kelby Van Patten, Bar No. 167553
3 kvp@paynefears.com
Jeffrey M. Hayes, Bar No. 246511
4 jmh@paynefears.com
Attorneys at Law
5 Jamboree Center, 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, California 92614
6 Telephone: (949) 851-1100
Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
7
Attorneys for Defendants CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada partnership;
8 NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP, a California limited liability partnership
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1100
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
(949) 851-1100
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
13 COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut
corporation,
14
Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada partnership;
17 NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP, a California
limited liability partnership; RGL, Inc., a
18 California corporation, dba RGL
FORENSICS; and DOES 1 through 10
19 inclusive,
20
Case No. 3:12-cv-00371-CRB
[Consolidated for Trial with Case No. 3:13-cv00088-CRB]
Honorable Charles R. Breyer
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE AND
ORDER
Defendants.
21
AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED CASE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3:12-cv-00371-CRB
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
1
Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut (“Travelers”) and Centex Homes
2 (“Centex”), Newmeyer & Dillion, through their designated counsel, respectfully request that this
3 Court stay this matter for all purposes, including the recent briefing the Court ordered following
4 the status conference held on March 18, 2016. (Docket No. 96.)
5
Travelers and Centex have been involved in substantial global settlement negotiations for
6 the dozens of cases between them in California courts. This includes state and federal cases
7 throughout California, including this one.
8
On January 19, 2016, Travelers and Centex attended a mandatory settlement conference
9 before the Honorable John A. Kronstadt of the Central District of California. Travelers and
11 discussions. As part of the ongoing settlement discussions, Travelers and Centex entered into an
12 informal standstill of most of the outstanding cases to conserve resources and promote judicial
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1100
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
(949) 851-1100
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
10 Centex adjourned the conference to exchange certain information to assist in further settlement
13 economy. Although this case was not initially part of the standstill, the parties wish to extend the
14 standstill to include this case as well.
15
Initially the standstill was for 30 days to facilitate a February 23, 2016, settlement
16 conference. However, Travelers and Centex continued the MSC to April 1, 2016, to permit for
17 additional information gathering. Recently, however, the Court continued the MSC to May 10,
18 2016. If discussions are promising, Travelers and Centex may wish to hold additional days of
19 settlement discussion if all issues are not resolved on May 10, 2016.
20
In light of the May 10, 2016, continued MSC, the parties now wish to stay this matter for
21 all purposes and to take the May 20, 2016, status conference off calendar. The parties believe a
22 stay will focus the parties’ settlement efforts and preserve judicial economy.
23
RGL, Inc. is not a party to the above referenced settlement discussions and is not
24 requesting a stay. RGL asserts that Travelers has failed to comply with its obligations under FRCP
25 26 (a) (1) (A) (iii) in that Travelers’ disclosure did not contain the required “computation of each
26 category of damages claimed”.
27
Nonetheless, RGL does not object to entry of a stay as desired by the other parties
28 provided that the stay shall not in any way prejudice RGL’s rights to bring a motion to compel the
-1STIPULATION TO STAY CASE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
3:12-cv-00371-CRB
1 required computation.
2
If the Court agrees to the stay, the parties propose that they submit a brief joint status
3 report no later than May 24, 2016, indicating whether the settlement discussions remain ongoing,
4 such that a continued stay is warranted, or whether the discussions have reached an impasse and,
5 in that case, propose a briefing schedule on the briefs the Court ordered during the March 18,
6 2016, status conference. (Docket No. 96.)
7
8 DATED: April 25, 2016
PAYNE & FEARS
LLP
9
By:
/s/ Jeffrey M. Hayes
J. KELBY VAN PATTEN
JEFFREY M. HAYES
11
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1100
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
(949) 851-1100
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
10
Attorneys for CENTEX HOMES
13
14 DATED: April 25, 2016
THE AGUILERA LAW GROUP, APLC
15
16
By:
/s/ Rebecca Hunter
A. ERIC AGUILERA, ESQ.
RAYMOND E. BROWN, ESQ.
REBECCA HUNTER, ESQ.
17
18
19
Attorneys for TRAVELERS PROPERTY
CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA
20
21
DATED: April 25, 2016
ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT
22
23
24
By:
/s/ Andrew P. Sclar
ANDREW P. SCLAR
25
26
Attorneys for RGL, INC.
27
28
-2STIPULATION TO STAY CASE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
3:12-cv-00371-CRB
1
ORDER
2
3
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED that this case is stayed for all
4 purposes and all pending deadlines are taken off calendar.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties submit an joint status update no later than
6 May 24, 2016, following of the conclusion of the MSC that is being held before Honorable John
7 A. Kronstadt of the Central District of California.
8
Dated:
9
April 28, 2016
Hon. Charles R. Breyer
Judge, United States District Court
11
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1100
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
(949) 851-1100
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3:12-cv-00371-CRB
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
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?