Webcor-Obayashi Joint Venture v. Zurich American Insurance Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WEBCORE-OBAYASHI JOINT Case No. 19-cv-07799-SI VENTURE, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING ZURICH 9 AMERICAN INSURANCE v. COMPANY'S MOTION TO STAY 10 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE Re: Dkt. No. 110 11 COMPANY, et al.,

12 Defendants.

13 14 On January 27, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Zurich American Insurance Company’s 15 motion to stay litigation. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion. 16 Zurich seeks a stay of this litigation until the resolution of the state court litigation between 17 Transbay Joint Powers Authority, Webcore-Obayashi, and numerous subcontractors. Zurich 18 contends, inter alia, that the state court litigation will resolve numerous outstanding questions about 19 damages that Webcore-Obayashi is seeking in this case, and that until the state court case has 20 concluded, the damages issues in this case are unripe and speculative. Zurich also asserts that 21 Webcore-Obayashi has refused to produce discovery that Zurich needs. 22 The Court’s power to stay proceedings is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to 23 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 24 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In evaluating the 25 propriety of a stay, the Court should consider “the possible damage which may result from the 26 granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, 27 and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, 1 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). 2 The Court concludes that Zurich has not met its burden to show that a stay is warranted. As 3 an initial matter, the Court notes that it has already granted several requests by Zurich for extensions 4 || of pretrial deadlines and continuances of the trial date. This case has been pending since 2019. As 5 || the Court stated in its previous order denying Zurich’s request for an open-ended stay, the Court is 6 || unwilling to stay this case for an undefined amount of time based upon the possibility that the state 7 court litigation may resolve certain matters that bear on issues in this case. Further, at trial Webcore- 8 Obayashi has the burden of proving that it has been damaged, and Zurich is free to argue to the jury 9 || that Webcore-Obayashi’s damages are speculative. With regard to discovery, the Court is aware 10 || that there are a number of discovery motions that are currently being litigated before the Special 11 Master, and he will determine in the first instance whether Zurich is entitled to any relief with regard 12 || to discovery. 5 13 In any event, as discussed at the January 27 hearing, due to the impact of the COVID-19 14 || pandemic on the jury trial process, this case cannot proceed to trial on March 7 as previously 3 15 scheduled. The new trial date is June 20, 2022. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: February 1, 2022 Sate WU tee 20 SUSAN ILLSTON 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28