Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01389/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01389-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOVEREIGN GENERAL INSURANCE No. 2:05-cv-00312-MCE-DAD

SERVICES, INC., a California 

corporation, Consolidated with

2:05-cv-01389-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER 

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,

an Ohio corporation, NATIONAL

CASUALTY COMPANY, a Wisconsin

corporation, SCOTTSDALE

INDEMNITY COMPANY, an Ohio

corporation, WESTERN HERITAGE

INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona

corporation, R. MAX

WILLIAMSON, an individual,

JOSEPH A. LUGHES, an

individual, and DOES 1 through

100, inclusive,

Defendants.

[CAPTION CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]

Case 2:05-cv-01389-MCE -DAD Document 23 Filed 07/05/07 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

 In reviewing the February 20, 2007 Memorandum and Order, 1

the Court notes that page 2, line 18 of that Order incorrectly

refers to SGI as the moving party rather than the Scottsdale

Parties. That represents a typographical error and is hereby

corrected at the Court’s own direction.

2

WESTERN HERITAGE INSURANCE No. 2:05-cv-1389-MCE-DAD

COMPANY, an Arizona corporation,

Plaintiff, Consolidated with 

2:05-cv-0312-MCE-DAD

v.

SOVEREIGN GENERAL INSURANCE 

SERVICES, INC., a California

Corporation; MARTIN F. SULLIVAN

SR. and GLORIA SULLIVAN, husband

and wife, guarantors,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On February 20, 2007, this Court issued its Memorandum and

Order granting summary judgment in favor of Scottsdale Insurance

Company, National Casualty Company, Scottsdale Indemnity Company,

Western Heritage Insurance Company, R. Max Williamson, and

Joseph A. Lughes (“the Scottsdale Parties”) with respect to all

claims asserted by Sovereign General Insurance Services (“SGI”)1

against the Scottsdale Parties in these consolidated proceedings.

The terms of the aforementioned Memorandum and Order make it

clear that judgment was entered only as to SGI’s claims. Western

Heritage’s own affirmative claims, as set forth in Case

No. 2:05-cv-1389-MCE-DAD, were not addressed by the Scottsdale

Parties’ Motion seeking summary judgment as to SGI’s claims. 

Those claims have not been subjected to challenge on summary

judgment and remain both pending and unresolved. 

Case 2:05-cv-01389-MCE -DAD Document 23 Filed 07/05/07 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

 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 2

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h).

3

Nonetheless, the docket text prepared by the Clerk of the Court

to accompany the February 20, 2007 Memorandum indicates that the

entire action is terminated, which would suggest an adjudication

not only of SGI’s claims but also of the separate claims asserted

by the Scottsdale Parties that were not the subject of the

summary judgment proceedings. The Scottsdale Parties now move

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) for relief from any

determination that their own claims are foreclosed by the Court’s

Judgment.

Rule 60(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “Clerical

mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and

errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be

corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on

the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the

court orders.” 

To the extent that the Clerk of the Court closed this case

in its entirety, that action was not in accordance with this

Court’s February 20, 2007 Order and was in error. The Scottsdale

Parties’ own claims against SGI remain active, and Scottsdale’s

Motion for Relief from Judgment under Rule 60(a) is proper and

shall hereby be GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to 2

administratively reopen this case in order to permit the

adjudication of the Scottsdale Parties’ claims in Case

No. 2:05-1389-MCE-DAD. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-01389-MCE -DAD Document 23 Filed 07/05/07 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

The Court will issue a separate Pretrial (Status) Scheduling

Order setting remaining pretrial deadlines, and establishing a

new trial date, in that case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01389-MCE -DAD Document 23 Filed 07/05/07 Page 4 of 4