Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00632/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00632-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

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

----oo0oo----

STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, a

Delaware corporation; and

AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND

LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a

New York corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v. NO. CIV. S-05-0632 FCD JFM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES DOBBAS, an individual;

PAMELA DOBBAS, an individual;

DONALD DOBBAS, an individual;

PETER MANCINI and LISA

MANCINI, husband and wife;

PETER MANCINI, as Special

Administrator of the ESTATE OF

CLAUDETTE MANCINI, deceased;

LISA MANCINI , as the Guardian

Ad Litem for NASYA MANCINI, a

minor; FALLON TURNER, an

individual; MERRICK TURNER, an

individual, 

Defendants.

___________________________/

AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS

_____________________________/

----oo0oo----

Case 2:05-cv-00632-FCD-JFM Document 109 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 6
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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

2 Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants will be designated

collectively as “plaintiffs.”

3 The Dobbas defendants also support plaintiffs’ request

to continue the stay.

2

This matter is before the court on a status after this

court’s order, filed March 8, 2007, staying this action for three

months, pending the resolution of a discovery dispute in the

Nevada District Court.1 Plaintiffs and counterdefendants

Steadfast Insurance Company (“Steadfast”) and American Guarantee

and Liability Insurance (“American”)2

 request that the court

continue the stay in this action for an additional two months to

allow the Nevada District Court to hear their pending motion

related to further discovery disputes.3 Defendants and

countercomplainants, Peter Mancini, Lisa Mancini, Nasya Mancini,

Fallon Turner, and Merrick Turner (collectively, “defendants”)

oppose the motion.

This suit arises out of a dispute regarding insurance

coverage. The facts giving rise to the insurance claims made by

the Turner and Mancini defendants involve a bodily injury and

wrongful death lawsuit, following a collision of the Turner

vehicle with an Angus bull and a subsequent collision of the

Turner vehicle with the Mancini vehicle. The collisions occurred

on May 27, 2002. The Angus bull belonged to James Dobbas and had

escaped from the pasture owned by Milton Holstrom. The

collisions involved two fatalities, and four of the vehicles’

occupants were injured. 

Case 2:05-cv-00632-FCD-JFM Document 109 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 6
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 Turner defendants and Mancini defendants filed

complaints against Dobbas, Holstrom, and others in separate

actions. They later consolidated their cases in the United

States District Court for the District of Nevada. The parties

reached a settlement agreement against Dobbas for $1 million. 

However, the parties also agreed to binding arbitration to

apportion any award between the Turners and Mancinis. The

arbitrator found that damages were owed in the amount of $5

million and apportioned the award between the Turners and the

Mancinis. Subsequently, it was discovered that Dobbas had

previously unknown insurance policies with plaintiffs Steadfast

and American, and defendants sought to recover the remaining $4

million from the policies. Plaintiffs brought suit, asserting

that there is no coverage because they were prejudiced by the

late notice of the suit.

Plaintiffs Steadfast and American filed an early motion for

summary judgment on the issue of late notice. The court denied

summary judgment, finding that although plaintiffs had identified

steps they would have taken in the litigation, they had not

presented sufficient evidence of actual prejudice, i.e. that the

result of the prior litigation or arbitration would have been

different had those steps been taken.

The parties conducted discovery in this matter, litigating

any discovery disputes relating to this matter in the Nevada

District Court. It is apparent from the parties’ submissions

that there have been vigorous disputes relating to the work done

by Dobbas’ attorney, Mr. Watson (“Watson”), in the underlying

arbitration. Specifically, the parties dispute the type and

Case 2:05-cv-00632-FCD-JFM Document 109 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 6
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

extent of Watson’s work product that has been ordered to be

produced by the Nevada District Court. On March 8, 2007, the

court stayed the action, pending resolution of the motion to

compel that had been filed before the Nevada District Court and

any other related discovery disputes. 

On March 7, 2007, the Nevada District Court heard oral

argument regarding the discovery dispute and ordered that Watson

produce the fact work product documents within fourteen days,

after redaction of any opinion work product portions. (Ex. A to

Joint Status Report (“JSR”), Docket # 108, filed June 1, 2007). 

On March 19, 2007, Watson produced the additional, redacted

documents to plaintiffs’ counsel. (JSR at 3). On April 4, 2007,

plaintiffs’ counsel wrote Watson, demanding an additional

privilege log. (Ex. B to Decl. of Paul F. Donsbach (“Donsbach

Decl.”), attached as Ex. B to JSR). On April 16, 2007, Watson

responded that his previous privilege log was complete and that

he refused to produce an additional log. (Ex. C to Donsbach

Decl.). On May 18, 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel responded to

Watson, stating that they believed he had not complied with the

Nevada District Court’s orders and that they would seek to compel

production of the redacted material, an in-camera review of the

redacted documents, and a supplemental and sufficiently detailed

privilege log. (Ex. D to Donsbach Decl.). Finally, on May 30,

2007, plaintiffs served defendants’ counsel with a Motion to

Enforce Court Order. (Ex. B to JSR). The motion specifically

references the relevance of the discovery at issue to the

litigation of this action. (Id.)

///// 

Case 2:05-cv-00632-FCD-JFM Document 109 Filed 06/07/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

This court possesses the inherent power to control its own

docket and calendar. Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v.

Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations

omitted). 

A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient

for its own docket and the fairest course for the

parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending

resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon

the case. This rule . . . does not require that the

issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling

of the action before the court.

Id. (quoting Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593

F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827

(1979)).

Based upon the submissions of the parties and a review of

the docket, the court finds that continuing the stay in this

matter for three (3) months is the fairest and most efficient

course of action. The court finds that plaintiffs were not

dilatory in their correspondence with defendants regarding the

Nevada District Court’s order, nor in their filing of their

motion to enforce. Moreover, the currently pending discovery

dispute is directly related to the discovery dispute at issue

when the court stayed the action in March 2007. From the

inception of this litigation, the parties chose to litigate all

discovery matters in the Nevada District Court. After heated

litigation over these issues in another forum, at this late hour,

this court will not now enter the fray. Accordingly, all

proceedings in this action are hereby STAYED for a period of

three months. A status conference is set for September 7, 2007

at 10:00 a.m., at which time the parties will address whether a

further stay of proceedings is necessary. The parties shall file

Case 2:05-cv-00632-FCD-JFM Document 109 Filed 06/07/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

a joint status conference statement on or before August 31, 2007,

apprising the court of the need, if any, to continue or vacate

the stay. If the discovery dispute in the Nevada District Court

has been resolved prior to the conclusion of the three months,

either party may file a motion to lift the stay or both parties

may file a stipulation and proposed order to lift the stay. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 6, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00632-FCD-JFM Document 109 Filed 06/07/07 Page 6 of 6