Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01377/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01377-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Houston Casualty Company
Plaintiff
Steve Metheny
Defendant
Levi Phillips
Defendant
Matthew John Vassel
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STEVE METHENY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-01377-KJM-CMK 

AMENDED ORDER 

 On July 22, 2015, defendant Matthew John Vassel filed an ex parte application, 

ECF No. 35, asking the court to continue the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment, ECF No. 33, until sixty days after the court has resolved his pending motion to dismiss 

or stay this action, ECF No. 30. Both motions are currently scheduled to be heard on September 

3, 2015. See Minute Orders, ECF Nos. 32, 37. Plaintiff Houston Casualty Company (HCC) 

opposes the ex parte application. ECF No. 36. 

 On December 5, 2013, defendant Vassel brought a civil action against Carson 

Helicopters, Inc., Carson Helicopter Services, Inc, Steve Metheny, and Levi Phillips. Case No. 

2:13-cv-02520-KJM-CMK (the Underlying Action). The Underlying Action arises out of 

Metheny and Phillips’ employment with Carson Helicopters, during which they allegedly 

falsified data resulting in a helicopter crash on August 5, 2008. Defendant Vassel was injured in 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-01377-KJM-CMK Document 41 Filed 08/07/15 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

the helicopter crash. He alleges that plaintiff Houston Casualty Company (HCC) has a duty to 

indemnify Carson Helicopters based on vicarious liability. 

 On June 6, 2014, HCC, which insures Carson Helicopters, brought this declaratory 

relief action against Metheny, Phillips and Vassel. ECF No. 1. HCC seeks a declaration that the 

applicable insurance policy does not provide coverage for the Underlying Action and Metheny 

and Phillips have stipulated that no coverage exists. See generally id. Vassel counters that this 

declaratory judgment action is not yet ripe, because the question of whether HCC has a duty to 

indemnify Carson Helicopters will arise only 1) if the Underlying Action proceeds to trial; 2) 

Carson Helicopters is found liable; and 3) Carson Helicopters does not have the funds to cover 

the judgment. ECF No. 35 at 9-10. The Underlying Action has been stayed pending resolution of 

Metheny and Phillips’ criminal proceedings. With those proceedings now concluded, the court is 

ordering that the stay of the Underlying Action be lifted. See Case No. 2:13-cv-02520-KJMCMK, ECF No. 58.1

 

 Vassel has moved to dismiss or stay this action pending resolution of the 

Underlying Action; its resolution says Vassel would then present a ripe controversy here. ECF 

No. 35. Rather than directly opposing dismissal or stay, HCC has filed a motion for summary 

judgment, and now an amended motion, asking the court to decide as a matter of law that HCC is 

not obligated to indemnify Carson Helicopters based on the policy and applicable law. ECF Nos. 

33, 38. Vassel asks the court to continue the hearing on HCC’s motion for summary judgment, 

because there is no need to expend time and resources resolving the coverage issue as it may be 

settled or mooted by a finding of no liability in the Underlying Action. Id. at 9. Vassel also 

argues it would be prejudicial to require him to oppose summary judgment with the stay being 

lifted in the Underlying Action, and in light of his need to direct his time and resources to 

resolving that action. Id. at 10. 

 The court finds it is in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency at this time 

to first resolve the first-filed motion to stay or dismiss rather than entertain simultaneous briefing 

 

1

 The court anticipates an order lifting the stay will appear on the docket of Case No. 2:13-cv02520 within the next day. 

Case 2:14-cv-01377-KJM-CMK Document 41 Filed 08/07/15 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

on two separate sets of motions. For that reason, the court grants plaintiff’s application to the 

extent it clarifies it will resolve the motion to dismiss or stay first, before hearing the motion for 

summary judgment. The court thus vacates and resets hearing on the motion for summary 

judgment, ECF No. 33, to November 20, 2015, with the briefing schedule controlled by the local 

rules. The hearing on the pending motion to dismiss or stay remains set for September 3, 2015. 

 SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 7, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-01377-KJM-CMK Document 41 Filed 08/07/15 Page 3 of 3