Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02308/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02308-3/pdf.json

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CROWN PAPER LIQUIDATING TRUST,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP,

INC., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-07-2308 MMC

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SEEKING LEAVE

TO FILE REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

On April 27, 2007, defendants American International Group, Inc., National Union

Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., and AIG Domestic Claims, Inc. removed the

above-titled action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. In that regard, removing

defendants asserted that defendant Richard E. Cowan (“Cowan”), the only defendant who

is a citizen of the same state as plaintiff, was fraudulently joined as a party. By order filed

May 14, 2007, the Court directed removing defendants to show cause, no later than May

24, 2007, why the action should not be remanded and, specifically, to demonstrate the

basis for their assertion that Cowan was fraudulently-joined; additionally, the Court afforded

plaintiff leave to file, no later than May 31, 2007, a reply to removing defendants’ response.

On May 24, 2007, removing defendants filed a timely response to the Court’s order. 

On June 8, 2007, the Court, having received no reply from plaintiff, ordered plaintiff to show

cause why its claims against Cowan should not be dismissed on the ground Cowan is not

Case 3:07-cv-02308-MMC Document 26 Filed 06/13/07 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

1

In its motion, plaintiff states “[a]s this [m]otion was being prepared for filing, counsel

received electronic notice of the Court’s Order [filed June 8, 2007]”; plaintiff further states it

“believes that [its] [m]otion should still be filed to properly advise the Court why [p]laintiff did

not file its Reply by May 31, 2007.” (See Pl.’s Mot. at 1:5-9.) To the extent plaintiff filed the

motion for said purpose, the Court finds plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for its failure

to file a timely reply.

2

properly joined as a party, and, further, afforded plaintiff leave to set forth its response to

removing defendants’ newly-stated reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Said order, in

essence, extended to June 22, 2007 the deadline by which plaintiff could file a reply to

defendants’ response.

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion Seeking Leave of Court to File Reply to

Defendants’ Response to Court’s Order Directing Defendants to Show Cause Why Action

Should Not be Remanded for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.” Said motion was filed

June 8, 2007, shortly after the Court filed its order that same date. In said motion, plaintiff

sets forth the reason it did not file a timely reply to removing defendants’ response to the

Court’s May 14, 2007 order to show cause, and seeks leave to file a reply to removing

defendants’ response.

In light of the Court’s order of June 8, 2007, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a reply

is hereby DENIED as moot.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02308-MMC Document 26 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 2