Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00861/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00861-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, 

a Delaware Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ENERGETIC LATH & PLASTER, INC., a 

California Corporation; ENERGETIC 

PAINTING AND DRYWALL, INC., a 

California Corporation; ROBERT CIMINI, 

an individual; GAIL CIMINI, an 

individual; and DOES 1 through 20, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-00861-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

AND RELATED CLAIMS 

On October 5, 2015, defendants and counter-plaintiffs Robert and Gail Cimini (the 

Ciminis) filed a First Amended Counter-Complaint against plaintiff and counter-defendant 

Lexington Insurance Company (Lexington), alleging, in relevant parts here: (1) breach of 

contract, (2) implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) violation of the Nevada 

Unfair Trade Practices Act, including section 686A.30(1) of the Nevada Revised Statutes. ECF 

No. 43. Lexington moved to dismiss the Ciminis’ counterclaim based on violations of the 

Nevada Revised Statutes section 686A.310(1). ECF No. 46. Prior to submission of the motion to 

Case 2:15-cv-00861-KJM-EFB Document 99 Filed 03/03/16 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 

2

dismiss on January 26, 2016, ECF No. 69, Lexington also moved for summary judgment on the 

Ciminis’ breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing counterclaims. 

ECF Nos. 57, 74. 

District courts have inherent power to manage their dockets. In re 

Phenylpropanolamine Products Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006). “All federal 

courts are vested with inherent powers enabling them to manage their cases and courtrooms 

effectively . . . .” Aloe Vera of Am., Inc. v. United States, 376 F.3d 960, 964–65 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(per curiam) (citations and quotations omitted). Here, the counterclaims presented in the Ciminis’ 

First Amended Counter-Complaint against Lexington present overlapping issues, including the 

interpretation of the insurance policy issued by Lexington, and Lexington’s actions taken in 

relation to the insurance policy and the underlying action litigated in Nevada. The allegations 

within the counterclaims also overlap each other. In particular, some of the allegations 

concerning the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are based on statutory violations 

alleged in support of the Nevada Unfair Trade Practices Act counterclaim. Thus, though the 

motion for summary judgment and the motion to dismiss attack separate counterclaims, the court 

finds its decision on the motion to dismiss may nevertheless alter the scope of Lexington’s motion 

for summary judgment and affect the parties’ positions with respect to that motion. See Nelson v. 

City of Los Angeles, No. 11-5407, 2015 WL 1931714, at *22 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015). 

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice to 

refile following the Ciminis’ filing of an Second Amended Counter-Complaint as allowed in the 

order resolving the motion to dismiss, filed concurrently with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 2, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00861-KJM-EFB Document 99 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 2