Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01533/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01533-0/pdf.json

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

---

No. C08-01533 CRB STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION 

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

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 

SONNENSCHEIN 

NATH 

&

ROSENTHAL LLP 

2121 N.

CALIFORNIA 

BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 

WALNUT 

CREEK, CA 94596 

(925) 949-2600 

LEANDRO H. DURAN (State Bar. No. 121847) 

LAW OFFICE OF LEANDRO H. DURAN 

95 South Market Street, Suite 300 

San Jose, CA 95113 

Telephone: (510) 540-1046 

Facsimile: (510) 540-1036 

Email: leandroh@leandroduran.com 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

KATTY VALLE, IVANIA RAMIREZ, 

JANET RAMIREZ and ZENEYDA BALTODANO 

CYNTHIA L. MELLEMA (State Bar No. 122798) 

JEFFRY BUTLER (State Bar No. 180936) 

MEGAN L. DUNHAM (State Bar No. 245991) 

SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP 

2121 N California Blvd., Suite 800 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Telephone: (925) 949-2600 

Facsimile: (925) 949-2610 

Email: cmellema@sonnenschein.com 

 jbutler@sonnenschein.com 

 mdunham@sonnenschein.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

KATTY VALLE, IVANIA RAMIREZ, 

JANET RAMIREZ and ZENEYDA 

BALTODANO, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendants. 

No. C 08 01533 CRB 

STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION 

PENDING RESOLUTION OF 

ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS ; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case 3:08-cv-01533-CRB Document 20 Filed 06/24/08 Page 1 of 5
No. C08-01533 CRB - 1 - STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION 

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

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 

SONNENSCHEIN 

NATH 

&

ROSENTHAL LLP 

2121 N.

CALIFORNIA 

BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 

WALNUT 

CREEK, CA 94596 

(925) 949-2600 

THE PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD, 

STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 

1. Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) issued an automobile policy to named 

insureds Rafael and Katty Valle, which was in effect on or about December 18, 2004 (the 

“Policy”). On or about December 18, 2004, plaintiffs Katty Valle, Ivania Ramirez, Janet 

Ramirez, and Zeneyda (“Plaintiffs”) were involved in a car accident. Subsequently, Plaintiffs 

made a claim to Allstate under the underinsured motorist provision of the Policy. 

2. Plaintiff Katty Valle’s Allstate automobile policy contains the following provisions 

regarding arbitration of uninsured/underinsured motorist claims: 

Part VI 

Uninsured Motorists Insurance Coverage 

Coverage SS 

We will pay those damages that an insured person is legally 

entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured 

auto because of: 

1. bodily injury sustained by an insured person, and 

property damage. 

2. Property damage is covered only if a separate limit is 

shown on the Policy Declarations for Uninsured Motorists 

Insurance - Property Damage. 

. . . . 

The right to benefits and the amount payable will be decided by 

agreement between the insured person and Allstate. If an 

agreement can’t be reached, the decision will be made by 

arbitration. 

If We Cannot Agree 

If you and we disagree on your right to receive any damages or 

on the amount, then upon the written request of either party, the 

disagreement will be settled by a single neutral arbitrator. 

3. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the above captioned matter against Allstate Insurance 

Company to compel arbitration and for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

4. In federal court, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs enforcement of 

agreements to arbitrate, the manner of conducting arbitrations, and standards for reviewing and 

enforcing arbitration awards. It mandates the enforcement of arbitration agreements arising out 

Case 3:08-cv-01533-CRB Document 20 Filed 06/24/08 Page 2 of 5
No. C08-01533 CRB - 2 - STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION 

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

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 

SONNENSCHEIN 

NATH 

&

ROSENTHAL LLP 

2121 N.

CALIFORNIA 

BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 

WALNUT 

CREEK, CA 94596 

(925) 949-2600 

of transactions involving interstate commerce, and provides in relevant part as follows: 

A written provision in any . . . contract evidencing a transaction 

involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter 

arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and 

enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the 

revocation of any contract. 

9 U.S.C. § 2 et seq. See also Warren-Guthrie v. Health Net, 84 Cal. App. 4th 804, 810-11 

(2000), overruled on another point in Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services, 35 Cal. 

4th 376, 393, fn. 8 (2005) (an insurance policy is within the scope of the FAA as affecting 

interstate commerce). 

5. As explained by the California Supreme Court, the “FAA, and section 2 in 

particular, ‘was intended to reverse centuries of judicial hostility to arbitration agreements,’ by 

placing arbitration agreements ‘upon the same footing as other contracts.’ Through the FAA, 

‘Congress precluded States from singling out arbitration provisions for suspect status . . . .” 

Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans of California, 21 Cal.4th 1066, 1074 (1999); see also Gilmore 

v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 24 (1991) (the FAA’s purpose is “to reverse the 

longstanding judicial hostility to arbitration agreements . . . and to place arbitration agreements 

upon the same footing as other contracts”). 

6. Likewise, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.2 provides: “On 

petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to 

arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court 

shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an 

agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists . . . .” California courts have held that the language 

is mandatory, not precatory (Coast Plaza Doctors Hosp. v. Blue Cross of California, 83 Cal. 

App. 4th 677, 687 (2002), and that any “doubts concerning the scope of arbitable issues [should] 

be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Market Ins. Corp. v. Integrity Ins. Co., 188 Cal. App. 3d 

1095, 1098 (1987). 

7. The parties request this Court stay this action pending the conclusion of arbitration. 

The FAA directs District Courts to stay proceedings pending conclusion of arbitration: 

Case 3:08-cv-01533-CRB Document 20 Filed 06/24/08 Page 3 of 5
No. C08-01533 CRB - 3 - STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION 

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

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 

SONNENSCHEIN 

NATH 

&

ROSENTHAL LLP 

2121 N.

CALIFORNIA 

BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 

WALNUT 

CREEK, CA 94596 

(925) 949-2600 

If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United 

States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in 

writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, 

upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is 

referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of 

one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has 

been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the 

applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such 

arbitration. 

9 U.S.C § 3 (emphasis added); see also 9 U.S.C. § 4. 

8. A stay is necessary to avoid duplicative proceedings. See Leyva v. Certified 

Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979) (“It would waste judicial 

resources and be burdensome upon the parties if the district court in a case such as this were 

mandated to permit discovery, and upon completion of pretrial proceedings, to take evidence 

and determine the merits of the case at the same time as the arbitrator is going through a 

substantially parallel process.”). 

9. The parties request this Court vacate all currently schedules dates, pending the 

completion of arbitration. 

10. The parties will contact the court within two weeks of the arbitration award and 

request this Court schedule a case management conference. 

Dated: June 20, 2008 Respectfully Submitted, 

LAW OFFICE OF LEANDRO H. DURAN 

By_______/s/ LEANDRO H. DURAN______

 LEANDRO H. DURAN 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

KATTY VALLE, IVANIA RAMIREZ, JANET 

RAMIREZ, and ZENEYDA BALTODANO 

Dated: June 20, 2008 SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP 

By_______/s/ CYNTHIA L. MELLEMA ____

 CYNTHIA L. MELLEMA 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY 

Case 3:08-cv-01533-CRB Document 20 Filed 06/24/08 Page 4 of 5
No. C08-01533 CRB - 4 - STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION 

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

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 

SONNENSCHEIN 

NATH 

&

ROSENTHAL LLP 

2121 N.

CALIFORNIA 

BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 

WALNUT 

CREEK, CA 94596 

(925) 949-2600 

PROPOSED ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. All proceedings in the above-captioned matter are stayed pending arbitration 

pursuant to the Policy. 

2. All dates, including discovery cut-offs, trial and motion filing deadlines, are 

vacated. 

3. The parties shall contact this Court within two weeks following the arbitration 

award to request a case management conference. 

 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________ ___________________________________ 

 Hon. Charles R. Breyer 

27298912\V-3

June 23, 2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:08-cv-01533-CRB Document 20 Filed 06/24/08 Page 5 of 5