St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company v. American Safety Indemnity Company et al
Filing
141
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO NATIONAL UNION ONLY re 140 Stipulation filed by St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Motions terminated: 132 MOTION for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment filed by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/10/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
THE AGUILERA LAW GROUP, APLC
A. Eric Aguilera (SBN 192390)
Kimberly R. Arnal (SBN 200448)
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 100
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
T: 714.384.6600 / F: 714.384.6601
eaguilera@aguileragroup.com
karnal@aguileragroup.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
13
ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. CV 13-01082 EMC
[Hon. Edward M. Chen]
STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARILY
DISMISS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
AMERICAN SAFETY INDEMNITY
COMPANY, an Oklahoma corporation;
ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation;
FIRST SPECIALTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION, a Missouri
corporation; GOLDEN BEAR
INSURANCE COMPANY, a
California corporation; LAKES AT
FOUNTAINGROVE, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company;
LEXINGTON INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation;
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Massachusetts
corporation; MT. HAWLEY
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois
corporation; NATIONAL UNION
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
PITTSBURGH, PA, a Pennsylvania
corporation; NAUTILUS
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona
corporation; NORTHERN
1
CASE NO. 3-13-CV-01082-EMC
STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW
YORK, a New York corporation;
PROBUILDERS SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, RRG, A
RISK RETENTION GROUP, a District
of Colombia corporation; STRS OHIO
CA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT I,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; TRP-SANTA ROSA 103
LAKES, LLC, a California limited
liability company; ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, a New York corporation;
and DOES 1-1000, inclusive,
Defendants.
9
10
11
WHEREAS, Plaintiff St. Paul Fire Mercury Insurance Company (“St. Paul”)
12
wishes to dismiss, without prejudice, defendant National Union Fire Insurance
13
Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National Union”).
14
WHEREAS, defendants Maryland Casualty Company, Northern Insurance
15
Company of New York, Zurich Insurance Company, American Safety Indemnity
16
Company, Arch Specialty Insurance Company, First Specialty Insurance Corporation,
17
Probuilders Specialty Insurance Company, RRG, Lexington Insurance Company,
18
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Golden Bear Insurance
19
Company, Maryland Casualty Company, Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, and Nautilus
20
Insurance Company have appeared in the present action.
WHEREAS, the appearing defendants are amenable to St. Paul dismissing
21
22
without prejudice National Union from the present action;
23
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between St. Paul and defendants
24
who have appeared in this action, by and through their designated counsel, that
25
defendant National Union is hereby dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FRCP
26
Rule 41(a)(1). National Union and St. Paul further agree to waive any claim for
27
costs each might have associated with the present action.
28
///
2
CASE NO. 3-13-CV-01082-EMC
STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS
1
Dated: December 6, 2013
THE AGUILERA LAW GROUP, APLC
2
_____/s/ Kimberly R. Arnal_________________
A. Eric Aguilera
Kimberly A. Arnal, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY
3
4
5
6
7
Dated: December 6, 2013
BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE
8
9
____/s/ Alan E. Swerdlow__________________
Alan E. Swerdlow
Attorneys for Defendant,
AMERICAN SAFETY INDEMNITY COMPANY
10
11
12
13
Dated: December 6, 2013
14
CRESSWELL, ECHEGUREN, RODGERS &
HARVEY
15
____/s/ Matthew S. Harvey_________________
Ronald D. Echeguren
Matthew S. Harvey
Attorneys for Defendant, FIRST SPECIALTY
INSURANCE CORPORATION
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Dated: December 6, 2013
SELVIN WRAITH HALMAN LLP
____/s/ Hillary C. Agnost__________________
Hillary C. Agnost
Gary R. Selvin
Attorneys for Defendants, LEXINGTON
INSURANCE COMPANY and NATIONAL UNION
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,
PA
27
28
3
CASE NO. 3-13-CV-01082-EMC
STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS
1
Dated: December 6, 2013
SINNOTT, PUEBLA, CAMPAGNE & CURET
2
3
____/s/ Randy M. Marmor___________________
Randy M. Marmor
Attorney for Defendants, MARYLAND CASUALTY
COMPANY, NORTHERN INSURANCE
COMPANY OF NEW YORK, and ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
4
5
6
7
8
Dated: December 6, 2013
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
9
10
_____/s/ Nicholas P. Honkamp_______________
Eileen R. Ridley
Patrick T. Wong
Nicholas P. Honkamp
Attorneys for Defendant, ARCH SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY
11
12
13
14
15
Dated: December 6, 2013
BRANSON, BRINKOP, GRIFFITH & STRONG
16
17
_____/s/ Geoffrey Hutchinson_________________
John R. Campo
David P. McDonough
Geoffrey Hutchinson
Attorneys for Defendant, PROBUILDERS
SPECIALTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, RRG
18
19
20
21
22
Dated: December 6, 2013
YARON & ASSOCIATES
23
24
25
26
27
28
___/s/ D. David Steele____________________
D. David Steele
George D. Yaron
James I. Silverstein
Attorneys for Defendant, GOLDEN BEAR
INSURANCE CORPORATION
4
CASE NO. 3-13-CV-01082-EMC
STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS
1
Dated: December 6, 2013
MORISON & PROUGH, LLP
2
3
____/s/ Jon Adams_________________________
William C. Morison
Michael D. Prough
Jon Adams
Attorneys for Defendant, MT. HAWLEY
INSURANCE COMPANY
4
5
6
7
8
9
Dated: December 6, 2013
SELMAN BREITMAN LLP
10
11
___/s/ Elizabeth M. D’Agostino_______________
Elisabeth M. D’Agostino
Attorneys for Defendant, NAUTILUS
INSURANCE COMPANY
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED,
The 1/23/14 hearing
on National Union's
MSJ is vacated.
19
20
28
S
ER
R NIA
FO
dwa
Judge E
H
27
RT
26
hen
rd M. C
NO
25
LI
24
Honorable Edward M. Chen
D
RDERE
IS SO O FIED
IT
DI
AS MO
A
23
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA _____________________________
RT
U
O
22
DATED: _______________
UNIT
ED
21
12/10/13
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
5
CASE NO. 3-13-CV-01082-EMC
STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age
of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 700 S. Flower St.,
Ste. 3350, Los Angeles, California 90017.
4
5
6
On December 9, 2013, I served the foregoing document described as:
STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARILYDISMISS; [PROPOSED] ORDER on the
interested parties in this action.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
BY U.S. MAIL
( ) *I deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope
was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and
processing correspondence for mailing. Under the practice it would be deposited with
U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los
Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of
the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA ECF I transmitted a true copy of the above
entitled document(s) to CM/ECF for filing and service on all parties.
(State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the above is true and correct.
(Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this
court at whose direction the service was made.
17
18
Executed on December 9, 2013 at Los Angeles, California.
19
20
________/s/ Judy Jaramillo_____________________
Judy Jaramillo
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
CASE NO. 3-13-CV-01082-EMC
STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS
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?