Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01070/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01070-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTEX HOMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-1070 OWW LJO

ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE 

Further Scheduling

Conference: 5/18/07 8:45

Ctrm. 3

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

January 4, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Priest LLP by Aaron R. Gruber,

appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Selvin Wraith Halman LLP by Curtis Ogilvie, Esq., appeared

on behalf of Defendant. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. This matter arises from a number of construction defect

lawsuits. Defendant was the liability insurer for one of the

subcontractors who worked on some of the single-family homes that

were involved in the underlying suits. Plaintiff’s claim seeks

Case 1:06-cv-01070-OWW -GSA Document 12 Filed 01/10/07 Page 1 of 3
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

recovery under theories of breach of contract, bad faith and

declaratory relief arising out of the insurance contract issued

by Defendant, to which Plaintiff claims it is an additional

insured.

2. Plaintiff has previously litigated and resolved

approximately 39 lawsuits involving thousands of single-family

residences in the Central Valley. These matters involved

approximately 100 to 110 subcontractors and their insurance

carriers. Plaintiff contends that, at the outset of the homeowner litigation, it tendered its defense and indemnity to each

of subcontractors and their insurance carriers. Plaintiff has

since been involved in extensive negotiations with the

subcontractors and their insurers to resolve these indemnity and

defense issues. Mediator Jonathan Margolis has been involved in

resolving a number of these matters. In an attempt to likewise

resolve the issues presented in this litigation, the parties to

this action have agreed to an early mediation with Mr. Margolis.

3. To facilitate settlement negotiations the parties have

agreed to an exchange of information they deem necessary to

engage in meaningful settlement discussions. Both parties

acknowledge that this exchange is more limited than what is

required by Rule 26. It is the belief of counsel that given the

extensive nature of the underlying litigation that a full Rule 26

disclosure may be substantial. Accordingly the parties wish to

engage in an early mediation in an attempt to resolve this matter

and reserve their rights for a full rule 26 disclosure until

after the mediation.

4. The attorneys have reviewed Local Rule 16-271 regarding

Case 1:06-cv-01070-OWW -GSA Document 12 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 3
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

this Court’s Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program. The parties

are unaware of whether Mr. Margolis is on the Court’s panel of

neutrals for VDRP. Accordingly, the parties are opting to pursue

outside dispute resolution with Mr. Margolis as provided in Local 

rule 16-271(a)(3). Pursuant to that subsection the parties

stipulate to adopt the following provisions of Local rule 16-271;

Subsections (h)(j), (k), (l), (m), (n) and (o).

IV. Mediation of Case.

1. The parties believe, based on the availability of the

mediator, that they will be in a position to report to the court

on their efforts to resolve the case by May 15, 2007. 

2. Accordingly, it is found to be in the best interests of

the parties and the interests of justice, that this Scheduling

Conference be deferred and that the case resolution efforts be

permitted to proceed with all attention and resources focused

thereon.

3. A Scheduling Conference in this case, if necessary,

shall be held on May 18, 2007, at 8:45 a.m. The parties may

appear telephonically. 

4. In the event that the case resolves, the parties shall

notify the Court upon their execution of documents memorializing

the resolution of the case and furnish the Court with appropriate

dismissal documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01070-OWW -GSA Document 12 Filed 01/10/07 Page 3 of 3