S.J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc. v. Executive Risk Indemnity Inc.

Filing 162

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG finding as moot 148 Motion to Amend/Correct ; ; finding as moot 152 Motion for Leave to File; finding as moot 154 Motion for Reconsideration (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION 5 S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a California corporation, 6 Plaintiff, 7 vs. 8 EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY, INC., a 9 Delaware Corporation, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No: C 06-2572 SBA ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant. On December 16, 2009, the Court issued its order on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff S.J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc. (Amoroso) with respect to its claim for breach of contract and granted summary judgment for Defendant Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc., as to Amoroso's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On January 11, 2010, Amoroso filed a motion to amend the judgment and a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. (Docket 148, 152.) The Court referred the matter to a magistrate judgment for a settlement conference, and held the pending motions in abeyance. The Court has been advised that the case settled at the settlement conference conducted by Magistrate Judge Zimmerman. (Docket 161.) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Amororo's motion to amend the judgment and a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration are DENIED AS MOOT. All pending matters shall be terminated. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 24, 2010 ________________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

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?