Navigators Insurance Company v. Chriso's Tree Trimming

E.D. California

Navigators Insurance Company v. Chriso's Tree Trimming

DecidedMarch 31, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-00132

StatusUnknown

This text of Navigators Insurance Company v. Chriso's Tree Trimming (Navigators Insurance Company v. Chriso's Tree Trimming) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Navigators Insurance Company v. Chriso's Tree Trimming, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00132 AWI JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION ALLOWING ) INTERVENTION BY MOUNTAIN F. 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 8) 14 CHRISO’S TREE TRIMMING, ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 )

17 The parties have stipulated to allow Mountain F. to intervene in this action and that this 18 intervenor will respond to the complaint within 15 days. (Doc. 8) In the complaint, Navigators seeks 19 and declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Chriso’s Tree Trimming, the company 20 claimed to have caused the “Railroad Fire,” which “burned 12,407 acres, and destroyed 14 structures, 21 including 7 single-family homes.” (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 11) Chriso’s was hired to do the work by Mountain F. 22 who had contracted with PG&E to perform the work. Id. at 2-3, ¶¶ 6-7. Mountain F. now claims to be 23 an additional insured under the relevant policy issued by Navigator’s. Consequently, it and Navigators 24 have agreed to allow the intervention. 25 Though the parties do not address Fed. R. Civ.P. 24(a), it appears this intervention is as of right 26 because Mountain F. is asserting an interest in the relevant policy and a decision would likely impair or 27 impeded Mountain F.’s interest and no other party would likely represent this interest adequately. 28 Modesto Irrigation Dist. v. Gutierrez, 2007 WL 164953, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2007). Likewise, the 1 stipulation is timely because the case is still in its infancy. Id. In addition, it appears that permissive 2 intervention also applies because there is a common question of law or fact that applies equally to 3 Chriso’s and Mountain F. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2). 4 Thus, based upon the stipulation of the parties and because it appears the intervention will 5 preserve judicial resources, the stipulation is GRANTED. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated: March 30, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00132 AWI JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION ALLOWING ) INTERVENTION BY MOUNTAIN F. 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 8) 14 CHRISO’S TREE TRIMMING, ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 )

17 The parties have stipulated to allow Mountain F. to intervene in this action and that this 18 intervenor will respond to the complaint within 15 days. (Doc. 8) In the complaint, Navigators seeks 19 and declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Chriso’s Tree Trimming, the company 20 claimed to have caused the “Railroad Fire,” which “burned 12,407 acres, and destroyed 14 structures, 21 including 7 single-family homes.” (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 11) Chriso’s was hired to do the work by Mountain F. 22 who had contracted with PG&E to perform the work. Id. at 2-3, ¶¶ 6-7. Mountain F. now claims to be 23 an additional insured under the relevant policy issued by Navigator’s. Consequently, it and Navigators 24 have agreed to allow the intervention. 25 Though the parties do not address Fed. R. Civ.P. 24(a), it appears this intervention is as of right 26 because Mountain F. is asserting an interest in the relevant policy and a decision would likely impair or 27 impeded Mountain F.’s interest and no other party would likely represent this interest adequately. 28 Modesto Irrigation Dist. v. Gutierrez, 2007 WL 164953, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2007). Likewise, the 1 stipulation is timely because the case is still in its infancy. Id. In addition, it appears that permissive 2 intervention also applies because there is a common question of law or fact that applies equally to 3 Chriso’s and Mountain F. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2). 4 Thus, based upon the stipulation of the parties and because it appears the intervention will 5 preserve judicial resources, the stipulation is GRANTED. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated: March 30, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Navigators Insurance Company v. Chriso's Tree Trimming, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/navigators-insurance-company-v-chrisos-tree-trimming-caed-2020.