Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Mixt Greens, Inc et al

Filing 90

ORDER SETTING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 5/18/2015. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

No. C 13-0957 PJH

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
v.
12

ORDER SETTING FURTHER CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

MIXT GREENS, INC., et al.,
13
14

Defendants.
_______________________________

15

AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS
_______________________________/

16
17

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the court will conduct a further case management

18

conference in the above-entitled action, on Thursday, June 4, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. The court

19

chooses not to wait until September 2015 as the parties have requested in their most

20

recent status statement, dated May 12, 2015.

21

The parties shall submit a Joint Case Management Conference Statement no later

22

than May 28, 2015. In the statement, they shall provide further explanation of their

23

respective positions, which they described as follows in the May 12, 2015, status

24

statement:

25
26
27
28

• Travelers contends that the Court’s partial summary judgment order “fully
adjudicates” all claims “based on the duty to defend.” Travelers further
contends that “the remaining claims regarding the duty to indemnify” are now
moot, because Mixt Greens or Hines/NOP were not held liable in the
Underlying Action.
• NOP and Hines contend that the remaining claims, including breach of
contract and reach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, are

1

3

not moot, that they include questions relating to the duty to defend which
remain unresolved, and that the duty to defend is not retroactively
extinguished by declaratory relief. NOP and Hines further contend that certain
duty to indemnify issues remain notwithstanding NOP and Hines' successful
defense of the Underlying Action.

4

The parties must clarify which claims (if any) remain at issue. In particular, if

2

5

Travelers' position is that NOP/Hines' counterclaims for breach of contract and breach of

6

the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are not viable, it should explain the basis

7

for that view; and NOP/Hines should explain the reference to "questions relating to the duty

8

to defend which remain unresolved" and the reference to "duty to indemnify issues."

9

The case management conference statement should also include a proposed
schedule for discovery and motion deadlines, and other pretrial and trial deadlines.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: May 18, 2015
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2