Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Ranger Pipeline, Inc., 3:16-cv-00815-HSG. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160831b33 Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 30, 2016
Summary: REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME OF THE COURT'S CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL AND ORDER HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: Plaintiff TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA ("Travelers") hereby submits this updated settlement report and request for an extension of the Court's March 22, 2016, Conditional Order of Dismissal. [ECF No. 14.] The Court had previously granted an extension of the March 22, 2016, Conditional Order of Dismissal
More

REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME OF THE COURT'S CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL AND ORDER

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

Plaintiff TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA ("Travelers") hereby submits this updated settlement report and request for an extension of the Court's March 22, 2016, Conditional Order of Dismissal. [ECF No. 14.]

The Court had previously granted an extension of the March 22, 2016, Conditional Order of Dismissal on June 1, 2016. [ECF No. 17.]

The parties have finalized the settlement agreement in this case. However, the settlement is conditioned on defendant RANGER PIPELINE, INC. ("Ranger Pipeline") obtaining a good faith settlement order in the underlying construction defect case entitled The Regents of the University of California v. RMF Engineering, Inc., et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-12-518341 (the "Underlying Action"). Or, alternatively, settling the entirety of the Underlying Action.

Due to the conditional nature of the settlement agreement and Ranger Pipeline's need to re-file its motion for a good faith settlement order or settle the Underlying Action, Travelers requests that this Court continue to retain jurisdiction of this case for another ninety (90) days or until Travelers files a dismissal with prejudice prior to the ninety (90) day extension of the conditional dismissal.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court will continue to retain jurisdiction of this case for an additional ninety (90) days from the date of this Order.

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