St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Evanston Insurance Company
Filing
45
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: STAY re 44 Stipulation filed by Zurich American Insurance Company, Steadfast Insurance Company. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 3/31/10. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2010)
1 SINNOTT, DITO, MOURA & PUEBLA, P.C. 2 3
Blaise S. Curet, #124983 bcuret@sdmp.com Stephen R. Wong, #186187 swonog@sdmp.com
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 720 4 San Francisco, California 94111-3910 Tel.: (415) 352-6200; Fax: (415) 352-6224 5 Attorneys for Zurich American Ins. Co. 6 and Steadfast Ins. Co. 7 8 9
SINNOTT, DITO, MOURA & PUEBLA, P.C.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION CASE NO. C08-05705 PJH
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: STAY
10
555 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 720 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3910 TEL (415) 352-6200 · FAX (415) 352-6224
11 St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 12 13 15 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 v Defendant. Plaintiff,
14 Evanston Insurance Company, 16 AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIM Evanston Insurance Company, Third Party Plaintiff, vs.
Zurich American Insurance Company 21 and Steadfast Insurance Company, Third Party Defendants.
STIPULATION
WHEREAS, the above-captioned case is an equitable action between insurance
27 carriers regarding the responsibility for and allocation of defense fees and costs incurred 28 on behalf of two common insureds, the Olympic Club and Plant Construction, in an
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: STAY
1 underlying action entitled, Academy of Art University, et al., v. San Francisco Olympic 2 Club, et al., Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, Case No. 3 CGC-03-427640 (the "Underlying Action"); 4 6 8
WHEREAS, the court in the Underlying Action awarded fees and costs in favor of
5 the Olympic Club and Plant and against the underlying plaintiffs;
WHEREAS, the plaintiffs in the Underlying Action had indicated that they would
7 appeal the award of fees and costs;
WHEREAS, the parties in the Underlying Action negotiated a settlement that might
9 allow the parties in the present action to amicably resolve their disputes and dismiss their
SINNOTT, DITO, MOURA & PUEBLA, P.C.
10 claims; 11
555 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 720 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3910 TEL (415) 352-6200 · FAX (415) 352-6224
WHEREAS, the parties in the present action do not wish to unnecessarily incur fees
12 and costs prosecuting and defending this action pending final resolution of the Underlying 13 Action and while they explore a possible resolution of the above-captioned action that 14 could result in a dismissal; 15
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2009, the Court stayed this action for 90 days to allow
16 the parties in the Underlying Action to finalize their settlement and to allow the parties in 17 the present action to explore a possible settlement; 18
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2009, the Court stayed this action for another 60 days
19 to allow the parties in the Underlying Action to finalize their settlement and to allow the 20 parties in the present action to explore a possible settlement; 21
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2009, the Court stayed this action for another 60 days
22 to allow the parties in the Underlying Action to finalize their settlement and to allow the 23 parties in the present action to explore a possible settlement; 24 26 28
WHEREAS, the parties in the Underlying Action have now finalized their
25 settlement and the settlement payments have been made;
WHEREAS, the parties in the present action agree that they need an additional 60
27 days to finalize their settlement negotiations;
WHEREFORE, the parties stipulate to the following:
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: STAY
2
1 3 5 6
1. This action be STAYED for 60 days to allow the parties to conduct further
2 settlement discussions;
2. The Early Neutral Evaluation session pending before Michael Lee be
4 CONTINUED until after the stay is lifted.
It is so STIPULATED:
7 DATED: March 30, 2010 8 9
SINNOTT, DITO, MOURA & PUEBLA, P.C.
MELENDEZ & ASSOCIATES By: /s/ MICHAEL W. MELENDEZ Attorneys for Defendant and Third-Party Claimant EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY
10 11
555 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 720 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3910 TEL (415) 352-6200 · FAX (415) 352-6224
12 13 14 DATED: March 30, 2010 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: March 30, 2010
MORALES, FIERRO & REEVES By: /s/ WILLIAM C. REEVES Attorneys for Plaintiff ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY
SINNOTT, DITO, MOURA & PUEBLA, P.C. By: /s/ BLAISE S. CURET STEPHEN R. WONG Attorneys for Zurich American Insurance Company and Steadfast Insurance Company
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: STAY
3
1 2
GENERAL ORDER 45(X)(B) CERTIFICATION I, Stephen R. Wong, hereby attest, pursuant to this Court's General Order
3 45(X)(B), that each of the other counsel identified above have authorized the 4 submission of this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re: Stay on that counsel's 5 behalf. 6 7 DATED: March 30, 2010 8 9
SINNOTT, DITO, MOURA & PUEBLA, P.C.
SINNOTT, DITO, MOURA & PUEBLA, P.C. By: /s/ STEPHEN R. WONG Attorneys for Zurich American Insurance Company and Steadfast Insurance Company ORDER
10 11
555 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 720 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3910 TEL (415) 352-6200 · FAX (415) 352-6224
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
March 31 DATED: ______________, 2010
It is hereby ORDERED that:
1. This action IS STAYED for 60 days to allow the parties to conduct further settlement discussions; 2. The Early Neutral Evaluation session pending before Michael Lee IS CONTINUED until after the stay is lifted.
By:
ER
N
F D IS T IC T O R
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: STAY
4
A
C
LI
FO
ZURICH\Ryan Engineering\Evanston 3rd Party Action\Pleadings\Stipulation.Stay.4.doc
Ju
llis J. H dge Phy
amilton
R NIA
ED Phyllis J. HamiltonORDER SO T IS UNITED I STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NO
UNIT ED
S
S DISTRICT TE C TA
RT U O
RT
H
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?