Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02165/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02165-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EAGLE STAR INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED, a foreign

corporation

Plaintiff,

v.

HIGHLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant/ThirdParty Plaintiff

v.

ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY, f/k/a AETNA

INSURANCE COMPANY, improperly

identified as ACE USA

Third-Party

Defendant 

Civil No. 02-CV-02165-WQH (CAB)

 ORDER 

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the motion to stay filed by Plaintiff Eagle Star Insurance

Company Limited. (Doc. # 132).

Plaintiff moves the Court to stay this action pending the outcome of the Texas Court of

Appeals proceedings pertaining to the settlement between Plaintiff Eagle Star and Defendant

Highlands Insurance Company. Plaintiff explains that Plaintiff Eagle Star and Defendant

Highlands Insurance Company “have reached a settlement but cannot consummate same so long

Case 3:02-cv-02165-WQH-CAB Document 137 Filed 10/26/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

as the appeal by third party defendant here, ACE Property Casualty Insurance Company . . . in

the Texas Court remains unresolved.” (Doc. # 132 at 1.) Plaintiff contends that a stay of this

action is the economically practical course of action and will not prejudice or damage any

interests of the parties. Defendant Highlands Insurance Company does not oppose the motion to

stay “given that maintaining the status quo appears to make economic sense for all parties.” 

(Doc. # 136 at 2.) 

“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with the economy of time and effort for itself,

for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The

Court concludes that the hardship to the litigants who would be required to litigate an action

which they have settled is sufficient to grant the stay.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to stay filed by Plaintiff Eagle Star Insurance

Company Limited (Doc. # 132) is granted so long as the appeal by third party defendant in the

Texas Court of Appeals remains unresolved. The parties shall file a joint status report in the

record of this case outlining the status of the appeal by third party defendant in the Texas Court

of Appeals within ninety days of the date of this order and every ninety days thereafter. 

DATED: October 26, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-02165-WQH-CAB Document 137 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 2