Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01448/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01448-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Continental Insurance Company
Plaintiff
Transatlantic Reinsurance Company
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Although a settlement by the parties does not automatically vacate a court’s order to

show cause, the Court does not find sanctions to be warranted in this case in light of the

parties’ settlement and the specific actions giving rise to the order to show cause.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONTINENTAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRANSATLANTIC REINSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

NO. C03-1448 TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

TRANSATLANTIC REINSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTINENTAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

NO. C03-5470 TEH

This Court is in receipt of Defendant Transatlantic Reinsurance Company’s August 9,

2006 letter advising the Court that the parties have settled this case in principle and are

working to document their agreement. Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that both Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Designate Expert and File

Expert Report and this Court’s July 6, 2006 Order to Show Cause are VACATED as moot.1

Because the parties have reached a settlement, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the

above consolidated cases shall be dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk shall close the

files. However, if any party certifies to this Court, with proof of service of a copy to

Case 3:03-cv-01448-TEH Document 83 Filed 08/11/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

opposing counsel, within ninety (90) days from the date of this order, that the agreed

consideration for the parties’ settlement has not been delivered, then this order of dismissal

shall be vacated and these cases shall forthwith be restored to the Court’s calendar to be set

for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/11/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:03-cv-01448-TEH Document 83 Filed 08/11/06 Page 2 of 2