Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03638/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03638-33/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 

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF 

CONNECTICUT; and ST. PAUL FIRE 

AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CENTEX HOMES; and CENTEX REAL 

ESTATE CORPORATION, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 11-CV-03638-SC

RESPONSE TO STATUS REPORT 

 On December 13, 2013, the Court granted Defendants' motion to 

stay this case pending the outcome of the California Supreme 

Court's decision in Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. J.R. Mktg., L.L.C., 

No. S211645, 2015 WL 4716917 (Cal. Aug. 10, 2015). ECF No. 224. 

On August 102, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its 

Opinion. 

On August 17, 2015, the parties filed a joint status report 

requesting a status conference to discuss what actions may need to 

be taken in light of the California Supreme Court's decision. ECF 

No. 231. Plaintiffs' position is that additional briefing is 

Case 3:11-cv-03638-CRB Document 232 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

needed on the effect of J.R. Marketing on this Court's August 26, 

2013 ruling on Centex's motion for reconsideration. Centex's 

position is that any party who believes J.R. Marketing affects a 

ruling of this Court should bring a motion for leave to file a 

motion for reconsideration consistent with Local Rule 7-9(a). The 

Court agrees with Centex's position and finds that a status 

conference at this time is unnecessary. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 

should file a motion for reconsideration. 

 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: August 18, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:11-cv-03638-CRB Document 232 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 2