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)

Download PDF
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?