Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00244/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00244-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Centex Homes
Counter Claimant
Centex Real Estate Corporation
Counter Claimant
St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company
Counter Defendant
Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut
Counter 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CENTEX HOMES, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-CV-244-LJO-GSA

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS (DOC. 21)

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

underlying action currently pending in Kern County Superior Court. Defendants Centex Homes and 

Centex Real Estate Corporation (“Centex”) constructs residential homes throughout California. St. Paul 

Mercury Insurance Company (“St. Paul”) is an insurance provider and provided insurance to one of 

Centex’s subcontractors, with Centex named as an additional insured under the policy (“the insurance 

policy”). 

Centex has been the defendant in a number of cases currently pending in this Court and 

elsewhere concerning lawsuits over alleged construction defects in the homes Centex has been involved 

in building and the insurance policies insuring the construction of those homes. St. Paul brought this suit 

due to Centex’s alleged breach of one of those insurance policies. See Doc. 17 at 1. Likewise, Travelers 

Indemnity Company of Connecticut (“Travelers”) brought suit against Centex in this Court for the exact 

same reasons as St. Paul. Centex moved to dismiss Travelers’s third cause of action for equitable 

reimbursement, which this Court granted without leave to amend on July 30, 2014. See Travelers v. 

Centex, No. 14-CV-217 (“the Travelers case”), Doc. 26.

Here, Centex moves to dismiss St. Paul’s third cause of action for equitable reimbursement. The 

Court has reviewed the papers and has determined that the matter is suitable for decision without oral 

Case 1:14-cv-00244-LJO-EPG Document 25 Filed 08/04/14 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

argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). The Court has reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions 

in their entirety and finds that the materials facts of the Travelers case and the arguments Centex made 

in support of its motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s third cause of action for equitable reimbursement in that 

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

granting Centex’s motion to dismiss in the Travelers case is directly applicable to Centex’s motion to 

dismiss here. Specifically, as in the in the Travelers case, Plaintiffs fail to allege that they immediately 

defended Centex in the underlying lawsuit at issue here. Rather, Plaintiffs allege that they “plan[] to 

accept” Centex’s tender of defense of the underlying. Doc. 17, Second Amended Complaint, at ¶ 16.

For the reasons more thoroughly discussed in the Court’s July 30, 2014 Order in the Travelers

case, Centex’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s third cause of action for equitable reimbursement is 

GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The August 13, 2014 hearing date is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00244-LJO-EPG Document 25 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 2