Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

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

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160621a49 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jun. 16, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 16, 2016
Summary: JOINT STATUS UPDATE AND ORDER CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . On April 22, 2016, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut and St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (collectively "Travelers") and Centex Homes ("Centex") stipulated to stay this case. (Docket No. 258.) Centex and Travelers (the "Parties") entered the stipulation to stay in order to facilitate settlement negotiations for the dozens of
More

JOINT STATUS UPDATE AND ORDER

On April 22, 2016, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut and St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (collectively "Travelers") and Centex Homes ("Centex") stipulated to stay this case. (Docket No. 258.) Centex and Travelers (the "Parties") entered the stipulation to stay in order to facilitate settlement negotiations for the dozens of cases pending between them in California state and federal courts.

The Court signed the stipulation, and entered the stay, on April 28, 2016. (Docket No. 259.) The Court's order requested that the Parties submit a joint status update no later than May 24, 2016, following the conclusion of an MSC that was to be held before the Honorable John A. Kronstadt of the Central District of California to discuss a global resolution of the cases pending between the parties.

During the course of the May 10, 2016, MSC the Parties reached a tentative settlement as to most of the cases pending between them; however the Parties did not discuss this particular case. Instead, the Parties agreed to hold a mediation on May 31, 2016, before a neutral in Nevada in order to continue settlement discussions about the cases that remain pending between them.

In a prior submission, the Parties requested the Court leave the stay in place until after the May 31, 2016, mediation, and they further proposed that the Court enter an order requiring the Parties to submit another joint status report no later than June 15, 2016, indicating whether a continued stay is warranted or whether the stay should be lifted. In response, the Court entered an order on May 24, 2016, requesting the parties submit a joint status update no later than June 16, 2016. (Docket No. 261.)

During the course of the May 31, 2016, mediation the Parties continued to discuss the many lawsuits pending between them, and the Parties reached settlements in principle about some additional lawsuits, but the Parties have not yet reached a settlement of this lawsuit. The Parties are currently continuing the settlement dialogue directly. The Parties request that the Court leave the stay in place for an additional 60 days while the Parties continue settlement discussions. The parties further propose that the Court enter an order requiring the Parties to submit another joint status report no later than September 1, 2016, indicating whether a continued stay is warranted or whether the stay should be lifted.

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED that this case will remain stayed for all purposes.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties submit a joint status update no later than September 1, 2016, that will address the status of their settlement efforts.

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