Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05240/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05240-4/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05240-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS 

TO DISMISS

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

STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

INC., a Texas corporation, 

Plaintiff,

v.

US-SINO INVESTMENT, INC., a California 

corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-05240-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

STAY; DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 87, 92, 105, 107

In this insurance coverage dispute, Plaintiff State National Insurance Company, Inc. 

(“State National”) filed the instant declaratory relief action against 17 defendants stemming from 

three civil actions in state court involving the death of a construction worker. The defendants 

named in this action include US-SINO Investment, Inc. (“SINO”), Richard Xin Liu (“Liu”), Dan 

Luo (“Luo”), Wesley Chen (“Chen”), Carlos Hernandez (“Hernandez”), Apolinar Polo Perez, Polo 

Perez Construction, Polo Perez Construction, Inc., Re Realty Experts, Inc., Re Realty Experts 

Affiliates, Inc., BSK Associates, Inc., and the “Pacheco Defendants” consisting of Maria Leticia 

Palacios Pacheco, Yaretzy Zapata Palacios, Maria del Refugio Zapata Palacios, Fatima Vanessa 

Zapata Palacios, Faustino Zapata Mercado, Martin Valenzuela Gaytan, Carlos Bocel Chiyal, and 

Francisco Javier Sanchez Rangel. Presently before the court are Chen’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 

No. 87); the Pacheco Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion to Stay (Dkt. 

No. 92); and SINO and Liu’s joinder to the Pacheco Defendants’ motion (Dkt. Nos. 105, 107).

Case 5:13-cv-05240-EJD Document 148 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 11
2

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05240-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS

TO DISMISS 

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

Federal jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). After carefully considering 

the parties’ pleadings along with oral argument, the court finds that the circumstances presented 

by this case warrant a stay in favor of the related state court civil proceedings. Accordingly, the 

Pacheco Defendants’ Motion to Stay will be GRANTED, and the remaining motions to dismiss 

will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons explained below. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background 

State National alleges that on October 7, 2011, it issued SINO a commercial general 

liability policy effective October 9, 2011 to October 9, 2012 (the “Policy”). First Am. Compl., 

Dkt. No. 49 at ¶ 44. The Policy contained limits of $1 million per occurrence, $2 million general 

aggregate, and $2 million products/completed operations aggregate. Id. 

SINO and Chen subsequently entered into a contract whereby SINO agreed to build a 

custom home for Chen in Milpitas, California. Id. at ¶ 33. SINO hired contractors to perform the 

work. Id. at ¶ 34. A payment dispute with the contractor hired to perform soils/grading work 

allegedly ensued, resulting in the contractor leaving the job in late December 2011 or early 

January 2012 and leaving the walls unshored. Id. at ¶ 36. After enduring three weeks of rain, in 

mid to late January 2012, SINO, Liu and/or Luo hired new contractors and workers to work at the 

construction site, including the decedent Raul Zapata Mercado (“decedent”). Id. at ¶¶ 37-38. An 

inspector from the City of Milpitas went to the construction site and issued a Stop Work Notice 

due to the danger of the unshored walls that included the likelihood of soil movement and 

collapse. Id. at ¶ 39. Despite the Stop Work Notice, however, work allegedly continued on the 

construction site. Id. at ¶ 40. On January 28, 2012, the decedent was working in a trench dug into 

the ground adjacent to an unshored wall, and was killed when the soil and earth moved causing the 

soil to bury him alive. Id. at ¶¶ 35, 42. Work on the construction site stopped following the death 

of the decedent. Id. at ¶ 43. 

Case 5:13-cv-05240-EJD Document 148 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 11
3

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05240-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS

TO DISMISS 

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

State National alleges that the California State Contractors Board suspended SINO’s 

contractor’s license, and the Policy issued by State National to SINO was cancelled effective 

March 25, 2012. Id. at ¶ 45. 

B. Underlying Civil Actions in State Court 

As a result of this accident, three civil actions were filed in state court. The first matter is 

Maria Leticia Palacio Pacheco et al. v. US-SINO Investment, Inc. et al, Case No. 112 CV 236494, 

filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court on November 21, 2012 (the “Pacheco Action”). Id. at 

¶ 27. The Pacheco Action is a wrongful death suit alleging that the decedent’s death was caused 

by the acts and omissions of defendants SINO, Liu and Luo. Id. at ¶ 28. Several cross-complaints 

have been filed by co-defendants of SINO, Liu and Luo seeking indemnity and contribution. Id. at 

¶ 29. 

The second matter is Wesley Chen v. US-SINO Investment, Inc. et al., Case No. 113 CV 

245057, filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court on August 8, 2014 (the “Chen Action”). Id. at 

¶ 30. The Chen Action is a breach-of-contract suit, and several cross-complaints have also been 

filed by co-defendants of SINO, Liu and Luo seeking indemnity and contribution. Id. at ¶¶ 30-31. 

The third matter is Hernandez v. US-SINO Investment, Inc. et al, Case No. HG14711571, 

filed in Alameda County Superior Court on October 3, 2014 (the “Hernandez Action”). Id. at ¶ 

32. In that case, Hernandez is suing for negligence and fraud, and alleges that he was working at 

the construction site when the wall collapsed and buried one of his co-workers and friend. Id. at ¶ 

32. 

In addition to the three civil actions, criminal charges were brought against Liu, Luo, and 

SINO. At oral argument, it was confirmed that Liu and Luo have been convicted and sentenced, 

and both are currently serving their term; and the criminal charges against SINO have been 

dismissed.

C. Procedural History 

State National commenced the instant action in federal court on November 12, 2013, 

Case 5:13-cv-05240-EJD Document 148 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 11
4

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05240-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS

TO DISMISS 

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

seeking only declaratory relief. See Dkt. No. 1. On January 15, 2015, State National filed its First 

Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint, and asserts the following claims: (1) 

declaratory relief—no duty to defend in the Pacheco Action; (2) declaratory relief—no duty to 

indemnify in the Pacheco Action; (3) declaratory relief—no duty to defend in the Hernandez

Action; (4) declaratory relief—no duty to indemnify in the Hernandez Action; (5) declaratory 

relief—no duty to defend in the Chen Action; and (6) declaratory relief—no duty to indemnify in 

the Chen Action. See First Am. Compl. 

In June 2015, Defendants filed the following motions that are currently before the court1: 

(1) Chen filed a Motion to Dismiss the fifth and sixth claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6) (see Dkt. No. 87); (2) the Pacheco Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in 

the alternative, Motion to Stay pending resolution of the underlying civil and criminal actions (see

Dkt. No. 92); and (3) SINO and Liu filed a joinder to the Pacheco Defendants’ motion (see Dkt. 

Nos. 105, 107).2 These matters have been fully briefed. See Dkt. Nos. 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 

114. The court held oral argument on September 17, 2015. See Dkt. No. 147. 

Although Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss, these motions can be resolved 

solely by addressing the Pacheco Defendants’ Motion to Stay. Therefore, only the Motion to Stay 

will be examined. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

The district court’s “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every 

court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 

itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Using this 

power, one case may be stayed in favor of another. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 

 

1 On August 11, 2015, State National filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary 

Judgment. See Dkt. No. 118. At oral argument, State National referenced the purported 

undisputed facts it set forth in the summary judgment motion. Since the summary judgment 

motion is not currently before the court, the arguments presented therein will not be considered in 

this order. 

2

The joinders to the Pacheco Defendants’ motion are GRANTED. 

Case 5:13-cv-05240-EJD Document 148 Filed 09/23/15 Page 4 of 11
5

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05240-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS

TO DISMISS 

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

F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1997) (“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 applies whether the 

separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character, and does not require that 

the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of the action before the court.”). 

In order to determine whether a Landis stay should be implemented, various interests must 

be considered: (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the 

hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the 

orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 

questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 

265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 154-55). Whether to grant a stay request is a 

matter entrusted to the discretion of the district court. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254 (“How this can 

best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and 

maintain an even balance.”). 

When weighing the relevant interests, the court must be mindful that “if there is even a fair 

possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to some one else,” the moving party 

“must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Id. at 255. 

Indeed, “[o]nly in rare circumstances will a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand aside while 

a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.” Id. Moreover, the 

moving party must cite to something more than the intrinsic inconvenience arising from 

involvement in litigation. “[B]eing required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a 

‘clear case of hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of Landis.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 

F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005). 

III. DISCUSSION

The Pacheco Defendants move to stay these proceedings pursuant to Landis. Dkt. No. 92 

at 9. Each relevant consideration is discussed below. 

Case 5:13-cv-05240-EJD Document 148 Filed 09/23/15 Page 5 of 11
6

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05240-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS

TO DISMISS 

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

A. Whether a Stay is Efficient or Will Simplify Issues 

The court begins by examining whether entering a stay of this action in favor of the state 

civil actions will result in any considerable efficiency or simplification of issues. 

The Pacheco Defendants argue that in adjudicating the instant declaratory relief action 

concerning insurance coverage based on certain exclusions of the Policy, this court will have to 

make certain factual determinations that are at issue in the state civil actions. Id. at 11. 

Specifically, the Pacheco Defendants point to three major issues that will overlap between this 

action and the state civil actions: (1) the intent of the insureds and others; (2) the circumstances 

surrounding the nature of the accident; and (3) the nature of the relationship between the insureds 

and the decedent. Id. at 11, 13, 17. In opposition, State National argues that there is no 

entanglement between the federal and state proceedings because, in the instant action, the only 

issues before the federal court are whether State National has a duty to defend or indemnify its 

insureds in any of the state court actions based on undisputed facts. Dkt. No. 109 at 10, 12. State 

National further argues that this court will be presented only with questions of law since it will be 

examining the terms of the Policy, and thus there is no risk of duplicative litigation. Id. at 11. 

Upon examining the Policy exclusions State National seeks this court to evaluate in 

determining coverage, this court agrees with the Pacheco Defendants that such evaluation will 

necessarily require certain factual determinations. For example, State National seeks adjudication 

on whether the following Policy exclusion applies: 

Expected or Intended Injury. [The Policy does not apply to] 

“[b]odily injury” or “property damage” expected or intended from 

the standpoint of the insured. This exclusion does not apply to 

“bodily injury” resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect 

persons or property.

First Am. Compl. at ¶ 47. As argued by the Pacheco Defendants, application of this exclusion 

requires a factual determination on the intent of the insured. See Dkt. No. 92 at 12. State National 

also seeks adjudication of the following Policy exclusion: 

Case 5:13-cv-05240-EJD Document 148 Filed 09/23/15 Page 6 of 11
7

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05240-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS

TO DISMISS 

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

Punitive or Exemplary Damage. [The Policy does not apply to] 

[a]ny sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay for 

punitive, exemplary or multiple damages.

First Am. Compl. at ¶ 53. Likewise, a determination of whether this exclusion applies requires a 

finding that the insured acted maliciously so as to be liable for punitive damages. In both of these 

instances, this court must make a factual determination on the intent of the insured, which is an 

issue the Pacheco Defendants are litigating in their state civil proceeding. 

Another example concerns a factual determination on the circumstances surrounding the 

accident. State National seeks adjudication on whether the following Policy exclusion applies: 

Subsidence. [The Policy does not apply to] “bodily injury,” 

“property damage” or “personal and advertising injury” arising out 

of the “subsidence” of land and arising out of or attributable to any 

ongoing operation of the insured or performed on the insured’s 

behalf or the “products/completed operations hazard.”

This exclusion applies whether such “bodily injury,” “property 

damage” or “personal and advertising injury” arises solely from 

“subsidence” or from “subsidence” in combination with other 

causes, whether natural or man made.

“Subsidence” means earth movement including but not limited to: 

(1) Landslide; 

(2)Mudflow; 

(3) Earth sinking; 

(4) Earth rising; 

(5) Collapse or movement of fill; 

(6) Improper compaction; 

(7) Earth settling, slipping, falling away, caving in, eroding or 

tilting; 

(8) Earthquake; or 

(9) Any other movement of land or earth. 

First Am. Compl. at ¶ 55. While State National argues that it is sufficient to find that the decedent 

was buried, the court agrees with the Pacheco Defendants that causation is a key issue in 

determining the application of this exclusion. See Dkt. No. 92 at 13; Dkt. No. 109 at 14. 

Application of the exclusion requires a factual determination as to whether the subsidence arose 

out of or is attributable to the insured’s ongoing operation or performed on the insured’s behalf. 

The causation of the accident and the insured’s conduct are issues being litigated in the state civil 

Case 5:13-cv-05240-EJD Document 148 Filed 09/23/15 Page 7 of 11
8

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05240-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS

TO DISMISS 

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

proceedings. 

Lastly, State National seeks adjudication on a series of policy exclusions pertaining to the 

relationship between and among the insured, the decedent, and other actors including: 

Exclusion—Engineers, Architects or Surveyors Professional 

Liability. This insurance does not apply to “bodily injury,” 

“property damage” or “personal and advertising injury” arising out 

of the rendering of or failure to render any professional services by 

[the insured] or any engineer, architect or surveyor who is either 

employed by [the insured] or performing work on [the insured’s] 

behalf in such capacity.

First. Am. Compl. at ¶ 58.

Exclusion—Contractors—Professional Liability. This insurance 

does not apply to “bodily injury,” “property damage” or “personal 

and advertising injury” arising out of the rendering of or failure to 

render any professional services by [the insured] or on [the 

insured’s] behalf, but only with respect to either or both of the 

following operations: 

a. Providing engineering, architectural or surveying services to 

others in your capacity as an engineer, architect or surveyor; and 

b. Providing, or hiring independent professionals to provide 

engineering, architectural or surveying services in connection with 

construction work [the insured] perform[s].

Id. at ¶ 59. 

Exclusion—Inspection, Appraisal and Survey Companies. This 

insurance does not apply to “bodily injury,” “property damage” or 

“personal and advertising injury” for which the insured may be held 

liable because of the rendering of or failure to render professional 

services in the performance of any claim, investigation, adjustment, 

engineering, inspection, appraisal, survey or audit services.” 

Id. at ¶ 60. As the Pacheco Defendants persuasively argue, adjudication of these issues requires an 

inquiry into the cause of the accident and a determination as to the party liable for the accident. 

Dkt. No. 92 at 16. These issues are being litigated in the state civil proceedings. 

In sum, to evaluate whether any of these Policy exclusions apply, this court will 

necessarily have to delve into the facts surrounding the circumstances of the decedent’s accident. 

Many of these issues and factual determinations overlap with the state civil proceedings. Thus, 

any factual determinations made by this court may conflict with the findings made in state court. 

Case 5:13-cv-05240-EJD Document 148 Filed 09/23/15 Page 8 of 11
9

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05240-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS

TO DISMISS 

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

As such, a temporary stay of this action will simplify the issues and promote the “orderly course 

of justice.” 

B. The Possibility of Damage, Hardship or Inequity 

The court now considers the possible damage to State National in granting a stay, and the 

potential hardship or inequity imposed on the Pacheco Defendants in the absence of a stay. 

State National argues that if a stay is granted, it will suffer prejudice because it would be 

forced to continue paying defense costs for the state court actions even if it is ultimately found that 

there was no duty to defend. Dkt. No. 109 at 17. On the other hand, the Pacheco Defendants 

argue that litigating this action will impose a hardship because their focus and limited resources 

will be pulled away from their state court action in order to defend this action. Dkt. No. 92 at 9. 

The Pacheco Defendants further argue that litigating this insurance coverage action before the 

resolution of the Pacheco Defendants’ state court action will deprive the Pacheco Defendants of 

the right to have factual issues adjudicated in their chosen forum—state court. Id. at 10-11. 

Furthermore, they argue that they will suffer prejudice if faced with collateral estoppel. Id. at 10. 

In weighing the risks of prejudice and hardship, it appears that the Pacheco Defendants 

will endure a greater level of risk. While State National expressed at oral argument that it should 

not be punished for “doing the right thing” by providing a defense to its insured, providing such a 

defense is part of an insurer’s obligation and cost of doing business. A temporary stay of this 

action will not preclude State National from seeking reimbursement of defense fees and costs 

should it become necessary in the future. 

The Pacheco Defendants, however, will suffer prejudice and hardship in the absence of a 

stay. Under the circumstances now presented, the Pacheco Defendants have been forced to defend 

a federal insurance coverage dispute in which they are not the insured. Given their limited 

resources, it is a significant burden for the Pacheco Defendants to litigate claims in two courts. 

C. Balancing and Conclusion 

On balance, the potential prejudice and hardship to the Pacheco Defendants that could 

Case 5:13-cv-05240-EJD Document 148 Filed 09/23/15 Page 9 of 11
10

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05240-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS

TO DISMISS 

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

result from inconsistent factual determinations outweighs any slight amount of prejudice State 

National may suffer from a temporary stay. Additionally, a temporary stay may result in the 

simplification of issues in this action. Therefore, this court concludes that abatement in favor of 

the parallel state proceedings is justified. Accordingly, the Pacheco Defendants’ Motion to Stay 

will be granted. 

As to the duration of the stay, “a stay should not be granted unless it appears likely the 

other proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time.” Dependable Highway Express, 

Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864). 

Recognizing that there is a general policy favoring stays of short, or at least reasonable duration, 

stays should not be indefinite. Id. at 1066-67. Given that the three state civil actions are based on 

the same set of facts, it is reasonable to stay this action until the resolution of all three state civil 

actions. Until such time, reporting requirements will be imposed so that the state litigations can be 

monitored by this court and the continuing propriety of this stay can be evaluated on an ongoing 

basis. 

IV. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Pacheco Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 92) is 

GRANTED. This action is STAYED in its entirety until the final resolution of the following 

actions: (1) Maria Leticia Palacio Pacheco et al. v. US-SINO Investment, Inc. et al, Case No. 112 

CV 236494, in Santa Clara County Superior Court3; (2) Wesley Chen v. US-SINO Investment, 

Inc. et al., Case No. 113 CV 245057, in Santa Clara County Superior Court; and (3) Hernandez v. 

US-SINO Investment, Inc. et al, Case No. HG14711571, in Alameda County Superior Court; or, 

until further order of this court. The clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this file.

The parties shall submit a brief Joint Status Report apprising the court of the status of the 

state court actions on January 4, 2016, and continuing every three months thereafter. Furthermore, 

 

3 At oral argument, counsel for the Pacheco Defendants informed the court that a request was 

made in state court to give the Pacheco Action priority on the state court docket. 

Case 5:13-cv-05240-EJD Document 148 Filed 09/23/15 Page 10 of 11
11

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05240-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS

TO DISMISS 

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

within 10 days of either (1) a resolution of the state court actions through settlement or other 

informal means, or (2) a final ruling from the court on any of the state court actions, the parties 

shall file a Joint Notice informing the court of such development and shall request that this matter 

be reopened and that a Case Management Conference be scheduled. 

The remaining motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 87, 92) are DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE to being re-filed and re-noticed when appropriate. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2015 

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-05240-EJD Document 148 Filed 09/23/15 Page 11 of 11