Nunn v. United States Liability Insurance Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SUZANNE NUNN, an individual, Case No.: 21-CV-1473 JLS (MSB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER LIFTING STAY AND 13 v. VACATING MARCH 18, 2024 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 14 UNITED STATES LIABILITY

INSURANCE COMPANY, a 15 (ECF No. 66) Pennsylvania corporation; 16 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and 17 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19

20 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Status Report (“JSR,” ECF No. 66), 21 which was filed in response to the Court’s January 18, 2024 Order (the “Order,” ECF 22 No. 63). In the Order, the Court asked the Parties to elaborate on the status of this action, 23 which has been partially stayed since September of 2023. See Order. For the reasons 24 below, the Court LIFTS the stay. 25 BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiff Suzanne Nunn initiated this action, which alleges the wrongful denial of 27 insurance benefits, against Defendants United States Liability Insurance Company 28 (“USLI”) and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) (collectively, 1 “Defendants”) on August 18, 2021. See ECF No. 1. The case was originally assigned to 2 Judge Benitez. 3 On September 26, 2023, the Parties jointly moved for a stay of this matter pending 4 “the completion of the related underlying litigation in the action styled”: Most Reverend 5 Kevin William Vann et al. v. Suzanne Nunn et al., Orange County Superior Court, Case 6 No. 30-2020-01164434-CU-DFCJC (the “Underlying Action”). See ECF No. 50 at 2. The 7 Parties argued a stay was warranted because the insurance coverage issue disputed in this 8 suit turned on facts being litigated in the Underlying Litigation, and because a stay “would 9 greatly increase the possibility of an informal resolution of this matter.” Id. at 3. 10 Noting his reluctance to pause the case indefinitely—as this action had been pending 11 for over two years and the Underlying Litigation remained in its infancy—Judge Benitez 12 stayed1 the case until November 6, 2023. See ECF No. 52 at 2–3. Judge Benitez later 13 agreed to extend the stay twice: first through January 2, 2024, see ECF No. 53, and then 14 through January 22, see ECF No. 58. Judge Benitez also set a new final pretrial conference 15 for March 18, 2024. ECF No. 56. 16 This case was reassigned from Judge Benetiz to Judge Curiel on January 17, 2024, 17 see ECF No. 60, and then transferred to this Court the following day, see ECF No. 61. To 18 facilitate the transfer, the Court extended the stay of this action through February 8 and 19 ordered the Parties to file a joint status report. See generally Order. The Parties complied 20 in a timely manner. 21 DISCUSSION 22 The Joint Status Report provides an update on the Underlying Litigation. Namely, 23 the Parties indicate that Plaintiff prevailed on a motion filed pursuant to California’s Anti- 24 Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“anti-SLAPP”) statute. See JSR at 3. The 25 complaint against Plaintiff was thus dismissed in its entirety by the California Superior 26

27 1 Per the Parties’ request, Judge Benetiz excepted certain discovery matters already pending before then- 28 assigned Magistrate Judge Pettit from the stay. See ECF No. 52 at 3 n.1. Said discovery matters have 1 Court on January 30, and she was given leave to move for fees and costs. Id. The Parties 2 suggest the outcome of Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs has at least some 3 bearing on how and when this case should proceed. See id. at 5, 12–13. 4 The Joint Status Report also contains a request from Defendants to extend the current 5 stay. USLI argues that an additional thirty-day stay would allow the Parties to weigh the 6 benefits of and prepare for potential mediation. Id. at 12. Nationwide echoes USLI’s 7 thoughts but asks the Court for a stay of sixty to ninety days. Nationwide seeks this 8 additional time “to allow for the scheduling of a mutually agreeable mediation date which 9 also takes into consideration the timeline for resolution of Plaintiff’s anticipated motion for 10 attorney’s fees” in the Underlying Litigation. Id. at 12–13. 11 Defendants seem to suggest all Parties agree that more time is needed and may help 12 facilitate the resolution of this matter, but the Joint Status Report indicates otherwise. USLI 13 writes that it “is in general agreement with Plaintiff’s proposal to briefly extend the existing 14 stay.” Id. at 12 (emphasis added). Plaintiff, however, merely notes she “is not opposed to 15 a further continuance.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff also expresses skepticism regarding the 16 possibility of a settlement. See id. (“Plaintiff . . . take[s] issue with Defendants’ 17 characterizations relating to past settlement/mediation efforts and the possibility of future 18 such efforts . . . . (emphasis added)). 19 The Parties disagree on other issues as well. Plaintiff claims “[t]he nature and 20 complexity of this case has been dramatically altered since this Court’s initial setting of the 21 discovery cut-off and Rule 26 expert disclosures/report exchanges.” Id. at 4. Said 22 developments, Plaintiff argues, are the result of USLI’s decisions to “dramatically change[] 23 its position on the issue of coverage” and to continue acting in bad faith. Id. Plaintiff thus 24 seeks “additional factual discovery” and the opportunity to designate a new expert. See id. 25 at 5. Countering, Defendants contend “[t]his case has always been an action for declaratory 26 27 28 2 Plaintiff notes, however, that her adversaries in the Underlying Litigation remain able to appeal the anti- 1 ||relief and bad faith” and “remains one.” Jd. at 10. Defendants thus oppose □□□□□□□□□□□ 2 || discovery-related requests in their entirety. 3 Given the update provided by the Parties, the Court sees little value in extending the 4 ||stay. This case has been ongoing for almost two and a half years. A stay was previously 5 || warranted to allow (1) the Underlying Litigation to proceed further, and (2) the Parties to 6 ||pursue settlement. It now appears that the Underlying Litigation has progressed 7 || substantially, and that an additional month or two of delay is unlikely to facilitate an out- 8 || of-court resolution of this matter. 9 CONCLUSION 10 In light of the above, the Court LIFTS the stay on these proceedings, see Ralph v. 11 || HAJ, Inc., No. 17CV1332 JMJIMA), 2019 WL 313098, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2019) 12 ||(“[A] court may lift a stay of litigation when the reasons for imposing the stay no longer 13 || exist.’”), and VACATES the March 18, 2024 Final Pretrial Conference. As some discovery 14 || disputes remain and new deadlines must be set, Magistrate Judge Berg will soon schedule 15 status conference for the Parties to attend. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||Dated: February 16, 2024 18 pen Janis L. Sammartino 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28