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)

Download PDF
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?