Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01859/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01859-2/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSCAR E ERICKSON, INC,

Plaintiff,

 V

NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY OF MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN;

PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE

COMPANY; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

COMPANY; THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; AIG

DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC; THE UNITED

STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY

COMPANY; METLIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, fka THE

TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY;

GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY;

AND DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

 /

No C 07-1859 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff Oscar E Erickson (Erickson) brought this action

against eight insurance companies, asserting that each carrier

failed to indemnify Erickson in response to multiple suits alleging

personal injuries from asbestos exposure. Erickson originally

filed his complaint in California state court. Defendant

Case 3:07-cv-01859-VRW Document 111 Filed 09/25/07 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

Northwestern National Insurance Company (NNIC) removed the case,

thereby triggering the discovery stay of FRCP 26. Doc #1. 

Immediately thereafter, NNIC and defendant AIG Domestic Claims, Inc

(AIG) filed motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment as

their initial responsive pleadings. Doc ##11, 13. 

Erickson requested leave of court to file a motion to

conduct early discovery pursuant to FRCP 26(d) and FRCP 56(f),

representing that such discovery was necessary to oppose the

pending motions. Doc #58. The court granted Erickson’s request. 

Doc #69.

Erickson filed his motion to conduct early discovery on

June 21, 2007. Doc #73. Therein, Erickson reminds the court that

he filed a motion to remand on May 3, 2007. Doc #43. The motion

to remand was taken off calendar when the court vacated the motions

to dismiss and was never fully briefed.

In his motion to remand, Erickson argues that the case

was improperly removed because only seven of the eight defendants

consented to removal. Doc #43. According to Erickson, such

removal is defective because it violates the “rule of unanimity,”

which requires that all defendants who may properly join in the

removal notice must join. See, e g, Hewitt v City of Stanton, 798

F2d 1230, 1232 (9th Cir 1986).

Given the suggestion that jurisdiction may be lacking,

the court will proceed to the merits of the motion to remand before

resolving the discovery dispute. Accordingly, defendants are

ORDERED to file a joint opposition to Erickson’s motion to remand

on or before October 11, 2007. Erickson may file a reply on or

before October 25, 2007. After all the papers have been received,

Case 3:07-cv-01859-VRW Document 111 Filed 09/25/07 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

the matter will be deemed submitted without oral argument. See

Civil LR 7-1(b).

Docket numbers 11, 13, 34, 38, 39, 50, 51, 57, 63, and 73

are STAYED pending resolution of the motion to remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01859-VRW Document 111 Filed 09/25/07 Page 3 of 3