Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01954/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01954-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Company, Charter Oak Fire Insurance

Company, and Travelers Indemnity

Company of America,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Lexington Insurance Company, 

American Home Insurance Company,

Commerce & Industry Insurance

Company, and Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company,

Defendants. 

Transportation Insurance Company and

National Fire Insurance Company of

Hartford,

Cross-Claimants,

v.

Ohio Casualty Insurance Company,

Maryland Casualty Company, American

Safety Indemnity Company, Lexington

Insurance Company, American Home

Insurance Company, Commerce &

Industry Insurance Company, Zurich

American Insurance Company, Liberty

Mutual Insurance Company, and

American Guarantee & Liability

Insurance Company,

Cross-Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1954-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Case 2:11-cv-01954-SMM Document 375 Filed 06/25/14 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Zurich American Insurance Company,

Cross-Claimant,

v.

Ohio Casualty Insurance Company,

American Safety Indemnity Company,

Lexington Insurance Company,

Transportation Insurance Company,

American Home Insurance Company,

Commerce & Industry Insurance

Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company, and National Fire Insurance

Company of Hartford,

Cross-Defendants.

American Home Insurance Company and

Commerce & Industry Insurance

Company,

Counter/Cross-Claimants,

v.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Company, Charter Oak Fire Insurance

Company, Travelers Indemnity Company

of America, Ohio Casualty Insurance

Company, Maryland Casualty Company,

American Safety Indemnity Company,

Transportation Insurance Company,

Zurich American Insurance Company,

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,

National Fire Insurance Company of

Hartford, and American Guarantee &

Liability Insurance Company,

Counter/Cross-Defendants.

Lexington Insurance Company,

Counter/Cross-Claimant,

v.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Company, Charter Oak Fire Insurance

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case 2:11-cv-01954-SMM Document 375 Filed 06/25/14 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Company, Travelers Indemnity Company

of America, Ohio Casualty Insurance

Company, Maryland Casualty Company,

American Safety Indemnity Company,

Transportation Insurance Company,

Zurich American Insurance Company,

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,

National Fire Insurance Company of

Hartford, and American Guarantee &

Liability Insurance Company,

Counter/Cross-Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Before the Court is a Stipulation of Dismissal between American Safety Indemnity

Company (“ASIC”); and Lexington Insurance Company, American Home Assurance

Company, and Commerce and Industry Insurance Company (collectively “AIG”). (Doc.

371.) 

To be effective at this stage of the proceedings, a stipulated dismissal must be “signed

by all parties who have appeared.” Fed R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). There is non-binding

authority to suggest that a stipulation signed by a plaintiff and some but not all defendants

can be effective against those defendants who signed the stipulation. E.g., McNamara v.

Edwards, 1993 WL 410689, 8 F.3d 28 (9th Cir. Oct. 15, 1993) (unpublished table decision).

Alternatively, the Court may dismiss an action upon plaintiff’s request on terms the court

considers proper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Thus, the Court may consider a defective Rule

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal signed by plaintiff pursuant to subsection (a)(2) of that Rule. Rule

41 “applies to a dismissal of any counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim.” Id. 41(c).

ASIC is one of 11 Counter/Cross-Defendants to AIG’s counter/cross-claims. (Docs.

153; 154; 155.) Some of AIG’s Cross-Defendants have their own crossclaims against ASIC.

(Docs. 120; 132; 214.) However, the only parties that signed the instant stipulation are AIG

and ASIC (Doc. 371); therefore, the stipulation is not signed by all the parties to the action,

nor is it signed by all the parties to AIG’s crossclaim against ASIC. Notwithstanding the

tangled and overlapping nature of the parties’ claims, the instant stipulation is narrowly

limited to dismissal of ASIC from just AIG’s crossclaims, and not the crossclaims of other

Cross-Claimants/Cross-Defendants. Under these terms, the Court considers dismissal of

Case 2:11-cv-01954-SMM Document 375 Filed 06/25/14 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

ASIC from all of AIG’s crossclaims—and only AIG’s crossclaims—to be proper.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing without prejudice ASIC from AIG’s

crossclaims.

DATED this 25th day of June, 2014.

Case 2:11-cv-01954-SMM Document 375 Filed 06/25/14 Page 4 of 4