Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04745/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04745-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

Case No.: 5:13-cv-04745-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION; DENYING AS 

MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY OF 

AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAUFMAN & BROAD MONTEREY BAY, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-04745-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION; 

DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 108

Presently before the Court is Defendants Kaufman & Broad Monterey Bay, Inc., K&B 

Bakewell Seaside Venture, LLC, and KB Home South Bay, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants” or 

“KB”) Motion for Clarification, or alternatively, for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. 

See Dkt. No. 108. The instant motion pertains to this Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Partial Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

(“Order”). See Dkt. No. 107. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the court has determined that 

a clarification of the order, rather than its reconsideration, is appropriate under these 

circumstances. 

As the parties are aware, the Court examined two specific issues due to the page 

restrictions on the parties’ briefs: whether Plaintiff Travelers Property Casualty of America 

(“Plaintiff” or “Travelers”) provided Defendants an immediate defense and whether Plaintiff 

provided Defendants a complete defense. See Order at 4. The Court found that Plaintiff did not 

breach these duties. See id. at 6, 8-9. Thus, insofar that an immediate and complete defense was 

Case 5:13-cv-04745-EJD Document 110 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:13-cv-04745-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION; DENYING AS 

MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

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

Northern District of California

provided, Plaintiff was entitled to appoint counsel of its choosing. See id. at 9. 

The Court, however, did not address the issue of whether Plaintiff breached its duty to 

defend by failing to provide a conflict-free defense since, as the court explained, “Defendants’ 

motion was reviewed through page 18.” Id. at 4, n.2. Although Defendants may have raised or 

alluded to the conflict issue in introductory materials,

1

they did not present a developed argument 

within the briefing reviewed by the Court. Indeed, such argument did not begin until page 19 of 

their motion, under the heading “Travelers Failed To Provide KB With A Conflict-Free Defense.” 

See Dkt. No. 54 at 19. Since page 19 fell outside the scope of the Court’s review, the issue of a 

conflict-free defense was not evaluated. 

Accordingly, and consistent with the preceding discussion, the Motion for Clarification is 

GRANTED. The Court clarifies that the issue of whether Plaintiff breached its duty to defend for 

failing to provide Defendants with a conflict-free defense, and whether Plaintiff’s right to appoint 

counsel of its choosing was forfeited on that ground, has not been adjudicated and remains a 

triable issue. 

With that said, Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration is

unnecessary and is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2015 

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

 

1

For example, Defendants wrote that “Travelers breached the insurance contract by breaching its 

duty to provide KB with a conflict-free defense of the Davis Action” in page 1 of the motion, but 

that is all. 

Case 5:13-cv-04745-EJD Document 110 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 2