Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Centex Homes, 3:11-cv-03638-CRB. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160429a57 Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 28, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION TO STAY CASE AND ORDER CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut and St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (collectively "Travelers"), on the one hand and Centex Homes ("Centex"), on the other hand, through their designated counsel, respectfully request that this Court stay this matter for all purposes, including the recent briefing the Court ordered foll
More

STIPULATION TO STAY CASE AND ORDER

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut and St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (collectively "Travelers"), on the one hand and Centex Homes ("Centex"), on the other hand, through their designated counsel, respectfully request that this Court stay this matter for all purposes, including the recent briefing the Court ordered following the status conference held on March 18, 2016. (Docket No. 257.)

The parties have been involved in substantial global settlement negotiations for the dozens of cases between them in California courts. This includes state and federal cases throughout California, including this one.

On January 19, 2016, the parties attended a mandatory settlement conference before the Honorable John A. Kronstadt of the Central District of California. The parties adjourned the conference to exchange certain information to assist in further settlement discussions. As part of the ongoing settlement discussions, the parties entered into an informal standstill of most of the outstanding cases to conserve resources and promote judicial economy. Although this case was not initially part of the standstill, the parties wish to extend the standstill to include this case as well.

Initially the standstill was for 30 days to facilitate a February 23, 2016 settlement conference. However, the parties continued the MSC to April 1, 2016, to permit for additional information gathering. Recently, however, the Court continued the MSC to May 10, 2016. If discussions are promising, the parties may wish to hold additional days of settlement discussion if all issues are not resolved on May 10, 2016.

In light of the May 10, 2016, continued MSC, the parties now wish to stay this matter for all purposes and to take the May 20, 2016, status conference off calendar. The parties believe a stay will focus the parties' settlement efforts and preserve judicial economy.

If the Court agrees to the stay, the parties propose that they submit a brief joint status report no later than May 24, 2016 indicating whether the settlement discussions remain ongoing, such that a continued stay is warranted, or whether the discussions have reached an impasse and, in that case, propose a briefing schedule on the briefs the Court ordered during the March 18, 2016, status conference. (Docket No. 257.)

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED that this case is stayed for all purposes and all pending deadlines are taken off calendar.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties submit a joint status update no later than May 24, 2016, following the conclusion of the MSC that is being held before Honorable John A. Kronstadt of the Central District of California.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer