Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01087/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01087-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company
Defendant
The Doctors Company
Plaintiff

Document Text:

STIPUALATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

CASE NO.: C 07 1087 JSW

1

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

James C. Krieg [SBN 77069]

Allison Lane Cooper [SBN 152384]

KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN LLP

114 Sansome Street, 4

th

Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 249-8330

Facsimile: (415) 249-8333

Attorneys for Defendant

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY

LINES INSURANCE COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)

THE DOCTORS COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL

SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE

COMPANY, and Does 1 to 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: C 07 1087 JSW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO

STATE COURT

Plaintiff The Doctors Company, an Interinsurance Exchange (“TDC”) and Defendant

American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (“AISLIC”), stipulate as follows

and respectfully request that the Court enter the parties’ proposed order appended to this

stipulation.

Case 3:07-cv-01087-JSW Document 16 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 1 of 4
 Case 3:07-cv-01087-JSW Document 17 Filed 04/06/07 Page 1 of 4
STIPUALATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

CASE NO.: C 07 1087 JSW

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

27

28

1. On January 23, 2007, TDC filed its Complaint against AISLIC in the Superior

Court for the State of California, in and for the county of Napa, Case No. 26-36415 (the

“State Court”).

2. On January 24, 2007, TDC filed its First Amended Complaint against AISLIC

in the State Court.

3. On February 22, 2007, AISLIC answered the First Amended Complaint in

State Court, and filed a Notice of Removal of the action to this Court (Docket No. 1).

4. In the Notice of Removal, AISLIC alleged, as a basis for invoking this Court’s

jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship, as the complaint demonstrated that TDC is an

interinsurance exchange formed and existing under the laws of California, with its principal

place of business in Napa, California, and AISLIC is an Alaska corporation.

5. After AISLIC removed the case to this Court, TDC asserted that there was no

diversity of citizenship, and the parties began meet and confer efforts to resolve the diversity

issue.

6. On March 26, 2007, TDC filed its Motion to Remand the case to State Court

(Docket No. 10). In its Motion to Remand, TDC requested the imposition of sanctions

against AISLIC for improper removal.

7. On March 27, 2007, TDC filed its Amended Notice of Motion and Motion to

Remand (Docket No. 15).

8. Subsequent to the filing of the Motion to Remand, the parties continued their

meet and confer efforts with regard to the diversity issue.

9. Based on information it received from TDC and the California Department of

Insurance after TDC filed its Motion to Remand, it now appears to AISLIC that there is not

complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, and that it is appropriate to remand this

action to the State Court.

10. Based on the foregoing, TDC agrees to withdraw with its Motion to Remand

and its request for sanctions.

Case 3:07-cv-01087-JSW Document 16 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 2 of 4
 Case 3:07-cv-01087-JSW Document 17 Filed 04/06/07 Page 2 of 4
STIPUALATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

CASE NO.: C 07 1087 JSW

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

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED:

11. The parties consent and agree to this Court’s remand of the action to the State

Court.

12. AISLIC agrees that TDC has not waived its right to recover its fees in

connection with the removal of this action at the conclusion of this matter should it prevail,

pursuant to Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 813 (1985).

13. TDC agrees that AISLIC is not waiving its right to contest the reasonableness

of the fees incurred by TDC in connection with the removal of this matter.

Dated: April 6, 2007 THELEN, REID, BROWN, RAYSMAN & STEINER LLP

By: /s/ John A. Chatowski___________________

JOHN A. CHATOWSKI

Attorneys for Plaintiff

THE DOCTORS COMPANY

Dated: April 6, 2007 KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN LLP

By: /s/ Allison Lane Cooper_________________

ALLISON LANE COOPER

Attorneys for Defendant

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL

SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE

COMPANY

Case 3:07-cv-01087-JSW Document 16 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 3 of 4
 Case 3:07-cv-01087-JSW Document 17 Filed 04/06/07 Page 3 of 4
STIPUALATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

CASE NO.: C 07 1087 JSW

4

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

Good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action shall be remanded to the Superior Court

of the State of California, in and for the County of Napa.

DATED: April ___, 2007 ____________________________________

HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01087-JSW Document 16 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 4 of 4

6

Case 3:07-cv-01087-JSW Document 17 Filed 04/06/07 Page 4 of 4