Texas Insurance Company v. Ares Insurance Managers LLC

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO. C23-01473-KKE 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON HEARING AND MOTION TO 9 STRIKE v. 10 ARES INSURANCE MANAGERS LLC, 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Talisman Specialty Underwriters, Inc.’s 15 (“Talisman”) motion to intervene (Dkt. No. 24), and Defendant Ares Insurance Managers LLC’s 16 (“Ares”) surreply motion to strike (Dkt. No. 36). Having reviewed these filings and the balance 17 of the docket, the Court ORDERS: 18 1) The evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff Texas Insurance Company’s (“TIC”) motion 19 for preliminary injunction scheduled for November 6, 2023 is converted to oral argument on the 20 motion to intervene (Dkt. No. 24) at 10:00 a.m. on November 6, 2023, in Courtroom 16206. At 21 that hearing, counsel shall be prepared to address the applicability of the first-to-file rule, with 22 respect to Case No. 2:23-cv-03412 pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana. See, e.g., Kohn 23 Law Group, Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi, Inc., 787 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2015). 24 1 Counsel for TIC, Ares, and Talisman should further be prepared to address the following 2 at the November 6 hearing: 3 i. Talisman describes the Louisiana action as “concurrent,” and claims that in that

4 action TIC “alleges substantially the same allegations as here” and “seeks the same 5 relief.” Dkt. No. 24 at 3. Do TIC and Ares agree with that characterization of the 6 Louisiana action? If not, what distinguishes the issues raised in the Louisiana 7 action from those in this action? 8 ii. Are the parties to the Louisiana action substantially similar to the parties in this 9 case? Does your answer depend on whether the motion to intervene is granted? 10 iii. Ares has stated that if TIC’s motion for preliminary injunction currently pending in 11 the Louisiana action is granted, it would moot this case. Dkt. No. 32 at 5. Do TIC 12 and Talisman agree?

13 iv. Would a stay of this case pending resolution of the Louisiana action maximize 14 judicial economy, consistency, and comity? If this case is not stayed, is there a risk 15 of multiple inconsistent judgments on the same issues? 16 2) Ares’s motion to strike (Dkt. No. 36) is DENIED. However, Ares is granted leave 17 to file a supplemental response addressing the material submitted in the Second Supplemental 18 Declaration of Jeffrey Silver no later than Monday, November 13, 2023. 19 Dated this 30th day of October, 2023. 20 A 21 Kymberly K. Evanson 22 United States District Judge 23