COURT'S NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR UMPIRE

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

This case arises from a dispute over the amount of an insurance payment owed to Plaintiff 730 I Street Investors ("Investors") by Defendant Evanston Insurance Company ("Evanston") for damage to a building owned by Investors. On April 25, 2019, this Court issued an order compelling the parties to comply with the appraisal process described in the parties' insurance agreement. ECF No. 15.

The required appraisal process proceeds as follows: "[E]ach party will select a competent and impartial appraiser. The two appraisers will select an umpire. If they cannot agree, either may request that selection be made by a judge of a court having jurisdiction. The appraisers will state separately the value of the property and amount of loss. If they fail to agree, they will submit their differences to the umpire. A decision agreed to by any two will be binding." ECF No. 4-4 at 80.

As party-appointed appraisers, Investors selected Eileen Diepenbrock and Evanston selected John A. Hillas. Pet., ECF No. 20, ¶¶ 9-10. Ms. Diepenbrock and Mr. Hillas were unable to agree on an umpire. Id. at ¶ 10; Resp., ECF No. 23 at 1. Investors now move for this Court to appoint an umpire. Pet. Evanston agrees it is appropriate for this Court to select an umpire. Resp. at 1. This Court agrees that the umpire should be selected consistent with the process described in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.6. Pet. ¶¶ 12, 14.

Accordingly, and upon consideration of the arguments and candidates presented in the Petition, Amended Petition (ECF No. 22), and Response, this Court nominates:

The parties are hereby ORDERED, within five days, to file a joint statement, limited to one page, informing this Court whether or not they have agreed on an umpire. If the parties fail to agree, this Court will appoint an umpire from the nominees listed herein. The umpire selected must comply with California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1281.85 and 1281.9.

IT IS SO ORDERED.