Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02328/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02328-4/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND-ALAMEDA COUNTY COLISEUM,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA,

UNDERWRITERS, LLOYD’S OF LONDON,

EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY COMPANY,

GULF INSURANCE, ZURICH AMERICAN

INSURANCE COMPANY, formerly known as

ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, ADMIRAL

INSURANCE, RLI INSURANCE COMPANY,

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1

through 50, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-2328 MHP

ORDER

Defendants have moved for summary judgment that Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum,

Inc. (“OACC”) is not entitled to coverage for the lawsuit involving OACC and the Raiders football

team in the California Superior Court for Sacramento County. In the California lawsuit, the jury

awarded the Raiders $34,303,135 on their negligent misrepresentation claim. After oral argument

on defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this action, the California Court of Appeal vacated

the jury verdict and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of OACC. Oakland Raiders v.

Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, Inc., No. C045792, 2006 WL 3334402 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 17,

2006). The parties are ordered to advise this court as to whether, in light of the California Court of

Appeal decision, any new issues exist that should be considered regarding defendants’ motion for

Case 3:06-cv-02328-MHP Document 175 Filed 12/27/06 Page 1 of 3
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

summary judgment that have not previously been briefed by the parties. The parties shall submit

their briefs, if any, within 30 days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:06-cv-02328-MHP Document 175 Filed 12/27/06 Page 2 of 3
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

3

ENDNOTES

Case 3:06-cv-02328-MHP Document 175 Filed 12/27/06 Page 3 of 3