Catlin Specialty Insurance Company v. CAMICO Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 49

Case stayed. re 48 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS filed by Catlin Specialty Insurance Company, ***Deadlines terminated. [ Case Management Statement due by 1/10/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 1/17/2013 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge EDWARD M. CHEN on 11/19/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

MATTHEW S. FOY (SBN: 187238)
GEOFFREY HUTCHINSON (SBN: 212050)
GORDON & REES LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
CATLIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

7
8
9
10
11
12

Gilbert D. Jensen (State Bar No. 061620)
MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP
One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant/Counter-Claimant
CAMICO MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

CATLIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff,
vs.
CAMICO MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, a California corporation,
Defendant.

21
22
23

CAMICO MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, a California corporation,
Counter-Claimant,

24
25
26

vs.
CATLIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,

27
Counter-Defendant.
28
-1-

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-00424-EMC
STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS; ORDER ON
STIPULATED MOTION (as modified)
Courtroom:
Judge:

5
Hon. Edward M. Chen

Case No. 12-CV-00424-EMC
STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS; ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION

1

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Catlin Specialty Insurance Company (“Catlin”) and

2

Defendant and Counter-Claimant CAMICO Mutual Insurance Company (“CAMICO”)

3

(collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”) hereby advise the Court that they have

4

reached an agreement in principle that would resolve the insurance coverage issues being

5

litigated in this action. Therefore, Catlin and CAMICO request that the Court vacate all

6

pending dates, and that this action be stayed to allow the parties the opportunity to resolve

7

this matter without the Parties or the Court incurring the costs associated with further

8

litigation. The Parties further request that the Court set a status conference on January 11,

9

2013 at 10:30 a.m., or another day convenient for the Court, so that the Parties can apprise

10

the Court of the status of the resolution of this case.

11

In support of this motion, the Parties state:

12

1.

It is expected that the agreement in principle reached between them will

13

resolve the coverage disputes at issue in this action. However, the Parties need additional

14

time to work out the details of the agreement in principle.
2.

15

Under the law, “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power

16

inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of

17

time and effort for itself, for counsel and for the litigants.” Landis v. North American Co.,

18

299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “When and how to stay proceedings is within the sound discretion

19

of the trial court.” Cherokee Nation v. United States, 124 F.3d 1413, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
3.

20

“Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the competing

21

interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.”

22

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). “Among these competing interests

23

are the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity

24

which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice

25

measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law

26

which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id.

27

///

28

///
-2-

Case No. 12-CV-00424-EMC
STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS; ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION

1

4.

Here, the Parties agree that this action should be stayed and agree that the stay

2

will facilitate resolution of the contested issues in this case. The stay should also afford the

3

time necessary for resolution of and dismissal of this action without further action from the

4

Court, thereby conserving judicial resources and eliminating the burden of the costs

5

associated with further litigation on the Parties and the Court.

6

5.

The only previous modification to the case schedule requested to date consists

7

of Catlin’s request for a continuance of the Court’s final determination of cross motions for

8

summary judgment (Docket Nos. 26 and 28) allowing Catlin to conduct discovery under

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(d), which the Court granted. The Court ordered

10

supplemental briefs due on January 7, 2013, responses to supplemental briefs due on January

11

14, 2013, and summary judgment hearing on the collusion issues and exclusion clauses on

12

February 1, 2013.

13

Wherefore, for the reasons stated above, Catlin and CAMICO request that the Court

14

vacate all pending dates, that this action be stayed, and that the Court set a status conference

15

on January 11, 2013 at 10:30 a.m., or another day convenient for the court, so that the Parties

16

can apprise the Court of the status of the resolution of this case.
Respectfully submitted,

17
18

Dated: November 15, 2012

GORDON & REES LLP

19
By

/s/ Matthew S. Foy
Matthew S. Foy, Esq.
Geoffrey Hutchinson, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
CATLIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY

20
21
22
23
24

Dated: November 15, 2012

MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP

25
26
27

By

/s/ Gilbert D. Jensen
Gilbert D. Jensen, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant/Counter-Claimant
CAMICO MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

28
-3-

Case No. 12-CV-00424-EMC
STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS; ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE

1
2

I, Matthew S. Foy, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this

3

Stipulated Motion to Stay Proceedings. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1, I hereby attest

4

that Gilbert D. Jensen, counsel for Defendant/Counterclaimant CAMICO Mutual Insurance

5

Company has concurred in this filing.

6

Dated: November 15, 2012

GORDON & REES LLP

7
By

/s/ Matthew S. Foy
Matthew S. Foy, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
CATLIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY

8
9
10
11
12
13

ORDER

14

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

15

All pending dates are vacated and this action is stayed.

16

The parties shall appear at a Status Conference to report on the status of the resolution

19

Dated:

ER

25

R NIA
FO

A

H

24

hen

rd M. C

dwa
Judge E

LI

RT

23

IT IS
DIFIED
AS MO

NO

22

______________________________________
Honorable Edward M. Chen ED
DER
United States District Court Judge
SO OR

UNIT
ED

21

ICT
C

S
TE
TA

RT
U
O

20

November 19, 2012

S

18

1/17/13 at 10:30 a.m. An updated joint CMC statement shall be filed
of the case on: ____________________________.
by 1/10/13.
DISTR

17

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

26
27
CATLN/1073181/14080229v.1

28
-4-

Case No. 12-CV-00424-EMC
STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS; ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION