Zurich American Insurance Company v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Company

Opinion

3 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE Case No.: 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA COMPANY, 4 Order Staying Case Plaintiff 5 [ECF Nos. 33, 40] v. 6 ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE

8 Defendant

9 The parties agree that this case should be stayed pending the Supreme Court of Nevada’s 10 ruling on defendant Aspen Specialty Insurance Company’s petition for a writ of mandamus in a 11 separate action before that court in Aspen Specialty Insurance Company v. District Court (St. 12 Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company), Case No. 83794. ECF Nos. 40, 42. Aspen contends a 13 stay is also warranted until the Supreme Court of Nevada resolves an appeal coming out of the 14 same state court case, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. National Union Fire 15 Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA, et al., Case No. 81344 (the “St. Paul appeal”). Zurich does 16 not specifically respond to the St. Paul appeal, and instead contends that any stay should be lifted 17 once the Supreme Court of Nevada resolves Aspen’s writ petition. 18 A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the 19 efficient use of judicial resources. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); 20 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). 21 When determining whether to stay a case pending the resolution of another case, I must consider 22 (1) the possible damage that may result from a stay, (2) any “hardship or inequity” that a party 23 may suffer if required to go forward, (3) “and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of 1} the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law” that a stay will engender. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). 3 I grant Aspen’s motion to stay the case pending resolution of both its petition and the St. Paul appeal. Both matters currently before the Supreme Court of Nevada involve issues similar to those raised in this case and any rulings by that court are likely to provide valuable guidance on Nevada law governing the claims in this case. Zurich agrees a stay is warranted for the writ 7} petition, so it has not identified any harm from a stay. Additionally, any stay is likely to be relatively short, given that the briefing related to the writ petition is nearing completion and the 9} St. Paul appeal is set for oral argument on April 5, 2022. 10 I deny without prejudice Aspen’s motion to dismiss so the parties may brief dismissal with the benefit of any guidance the Supreme Court of Nevada provides. Aspen may refile a 12] motion to dismiss after the stay 1s lifted. 13 I THEREFORE ORDER that defendant Aspen Specialty Insurance Company’s motion to 14 stay case (EFC No. 40) is GRANTED. This case is STAYED pending the Supreme Court of 15] Nevada’s resolution of Aspen Specialty Insurance Company v. District Court (St. Paul Fire & 16 Marine Insurance Company), Case No. 83794 and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company 17 v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA, et al., Case No. 81344. Any party may move to lift stay upon that court’s resolution of those cases. 19 I FURTHER ORDER that defendant Aspen Specialty Insurance Company’s motion to 20] dismiss (ECF No. 33) is DENIED without prejudice to refile once the stay is lifted. 21 DATED this 23rd day of March, 2022. 22 ANDREWP.GORDON. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE