Crisco v. Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 8, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-07320
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

10 PATRICIA CRISCO, et al., 11 Plaintiffs, No. C 19-07320 WHA

12 v.

13 FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY ORDER RE STIPULATION TO SET GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, and BRIEFING SCHEDULE 14 FOREMOST PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 By stipulation, the parties request a briefing schedule to guide prospective motions for 19 partial summary judgment limited to purely legal, insurance coverage issues. Early resolution 20 of the legal issues, the parties agree, would be in the best interest of the elderly plaintiffs 21 displaced by fire damage to their mobile homes — the insured property at issue here — during 22 the 2017 Sonoma Complex fires. 23 The parties propose plaintiff bring one motion followed by defendants’ opposition and an 24 additional motion from defendants “addressing the insurance coverage issue raised by 25 [p]laintiffs’ motion” (Dkt. No. 35) (emphasis added). Briefing would extend into September, 26 defendants having the final reply, followed by a hearing “as early as possible” within the 27 month of September. The parties would then have the remaining discovery and dispositive ] While the parties are free to bring early Rule 56 motions, partial or not, the proposed 2 schedule will not be blessed. The parties need not bring two separate, fully-briefed motions on 3 the same insurance coverage issues, particularly given that such motions would be limited to 4 purely legal issues and leave open the possibility of further dispositive motions. Given that the 5 parties agree that early resolution of the contemplated legal issues is in plaintiffs’ best interest, 6 plaintiffs should bring their motion as soon as they see fit. Plaintiffs’ motion will be heard on 7 the standard 35-day track. 8 Similarly, that the parties agree that early resolution of this action 1s in plaintiffs’ best 9 interest urges against extending the remaining deadlines due to the proposed motion practice. 10 In Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936), the Supreme Court cautioned that 11 “if there is even a fair possibility that [a] stay . .. will work damage to some one else,” the 12 party seeking the stay “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity.” See also Lockyer 13 v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005). Neither side makes a showing of 14 hardship or inequity here. Being required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a 3 15 clear case of hardship or inequity to justify a stay. /bid. If plaintiffs file their motion within a 16 the next two weeks, the contemplated legal issues will be resolved by the end of August. Even 3 17 if the action continues into September, any discovery taken in the meantime will likely aid the 18 early settlement of plaintiffs’ claims. 19 For the reasons stated herein, the stipulation is DENIED. 20 21 IT ISSO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: July 8, 2020. 24 25 Ce [x WI MALS 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28