Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00452/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00452-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF 

CONNECTICUT AND TRAVELERS 

PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF 

AMERICA,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CENTEX HOMES, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-CV-452-LJO-GSA

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS (DOC. 7)

This case concerns a dispute between the parties concerning their rights and duties in an 

underlying action currently pending in Kings County Superior Court (“the Numi action”). Defendants 

Centex Homes and Centex Real Estate Corporation (“Centex”) construct residential homes throughout 

California. Plaintiffs are insurance providers and provided insurance to one of Centex’s subcontractors, 

with Centex named as an additional insured under the policy (“the insurance policy”). 

Currently before the Court is Centex’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ third cause of action in their 

first amended complaint (Doc. 18 (“FAC”)). Doc. 20. The Court has reviewed the papers and has 

determined that the matter is suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).

This case is one of many between the parties currently pending in this Court and elsewhere. The 

Court has already issued multiple orders in these cases. See, e.g., Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut v. 

Centex Homes, No. 1:14-cv-217-LJO-GSA, 2014 WL 3778269 (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2014) (“the Travelers

case”). The Court has reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions in their entirety and finds that the 

material facts of the Travelers case and the arguments Centex made in support of its motion to dismiss 

in that case are essentially identical to those involved in this case. That is, the Court finds that the Order 

Case 1:14-cv-00452-LJO-EPG Document 20 Filed 08/15/14 Page 1 of 2
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

2

granting Centex’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for equitable reimbursement in the 

Travelers case is directly applicable to Centex’s motion to dismiss here.

As explained in the Travelers case, to state a claim for equitable reimbursement, Plaintiffs must 

allege that they agreed to defend Centex immediately upon its tender of the Numi action to Plaintiffs. 

Although Plaintiffs allege that they agreed to defend Centex in the Numi action, see FAC at 14, the FAC 

provides no facts as to when Centex tendered the Numi action or when Plaintiffs agreed to defend 

Centex in that case. In the absence of any clear allegation that Plaintiffs immediately agreed to defend 

Centex in the Numi action, Plaintiffs’ equitable reimbursement claim fails. Accordingly, the Court 

GRANTS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Centex’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ third cause of action 

for equitable reimbursement (Doc. 20).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00452-LJO-EPG Document 20 Filed 08/15/14 Page 2 of 2