St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company v. American Safety Indemnity Company et al

Filing 61

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting 57 Ex Parte Application to Continue Case Management Conference.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
AMERICAN SAFETY INDEMNITY
)
COMPNAY, an Oklahoma corporation;
)
CENTURY SURETY COMPANY, an Ohio
)
corporation; CHARTIS SPECIALTY
)
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois
)
corporation; CLARENDON AMERICA
)
INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey
)
corporation; FIRST MERCURY INSURANCE )
COMPANY, an Illinois corporation; GEMINI )
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware
)
corporation; GRANITE STATE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation;
)
GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE
)
COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; HARTFORD )
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an
)
Indiana corporation; INTERSTATE FIRE &
)
CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois
)
corporation; IRONSHORE SPECIALTY
)
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona
)
corporation; LEXINGTON INSURANCE
)
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation;
)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation;
)
NATIONAL FIRST & MARINES
)
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska
)
corporation; NAVIGATORS INSURANCE
)
COMPANY, a New York corporation; NIC
)
1
Case No.: 12-CV-05952-LHK
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

Case No.: 12-CV-05952-LHK

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York
corporation; NOTH AMERICAN CAPACITY
INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Hampshire
corporation; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation;
PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Pennsylvania corporation; ROCKHILL
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona
corporation; VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation;
VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, an Illinois
corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive,

8

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

On November 21, 2012, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant
insurance action against twenty-two defendants. ECF No. 1. Since that time, the parties have filed
no less than ten stipulations to extend time for Defendants to file responses to the Complaint. See
ECF Nos. 7, 9, 11, 21, 32, 33, 31, 42, 44, and 53.
On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application to Continue the Case
Management Conference Set for February 27, 2013. ECF No. 57. In this Application, Plaintiff
states that, as of February 6, 2013, only six attorneys representing ten of the named defendants had
answered or advised of their representation. Id. at 4. Plaintiffs further advise that, “[s]ince that
time, counsel for all but two of the remaining defendants have advised of their representation or
that representation is forthcoming.” Id. Plaintiff now requests a continuance of the case
management conference by four weeks “so that all named defendants may enter their appearances
and the parties can conduct a further Rule 26(f) conference and allow for a productive Case
Management Conference.” Id.
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to GRANT Plaintiff’s ex parte request
to continue the case management conference from February 27, 2013, to April 3, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.
However, any further requests for extensions will be disfavored.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-05952-LHK
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING