St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company v. Centex Homes, et al, No. 1:2014cv00244 - Document 37 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Re Plaintiffs' Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. 32 ) Of Memorandum Decision And ORDER (Doc. 25 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/16/2014. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 8 9 10 11 1:14-cv-244-LJO-GSA MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 32) OF MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER (Doc. 25) Plaintiffs, v. CENTEX HOMES, et al., Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiffs St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company and Travelers Indemnity Company of 15 16 17 Connecticut (collectively, Plaintiffs ) filed this suit against Defendants Centex Homes and Centex Real Estate Corporation (collectively, Centex ) on February 24, 2014. Doc. 1. On April 9, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint ( the FAC ) in which they alleged three causes of action for (1) 18 declaratory relief, (2) breach of contract, and (3) equitable reimbursement. Doc. 9. 19 20 On May 20, 2014, the Court granted with leave to amend Centex s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs third claim for equitable reimbursement based on the Court s resolution of a similar motion to dismiss in 21 a related case, Travelers v. Centex, No. 14-cv-217-LJO-GSA, 2014 WL 2002320 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 22 2014) ( the Travelers case ). Doc. 16 at 2. In the Travelers case, the Court found that Plaintiffs 23 equitable reimbursement claim failed because the underlying state court lawsuit between the parties 24 the basis for the claim was still pending in state court. 2014 WL 2002320, at *6. The Court did not 25 address Centex s other arguments as to why Plaintiffs claim failed. Specifically, the Court did not 26 1 1 address Centex s argument that Plaintiffs equitable reimbursement claim failed because the FAC did 2 not allege facts demonstrating that Plaintiffs immediately agreed to defend Centex in the underlying 3 state court action. See id. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint ( the SAC ) on June 9, 2014. Doc. 17, Second 4 5 Amended Complaint ( SAC ). On July 2, 2014, Centex moved to dismiss Plaintiffs equitable 6 reimbursement claim. Doc. 21 at 3. Centex argued that the claim should be dismissed for multiple 7 reasons, including the fact that the SAC did not allege facts demonstrating that Plaintiffs immediately 8 agreed to defend Centex in the underlying state court action. Id. at 3, 9-10. Plaintiffs did not address this 9 argument in their opposition to Centex s motion to dismiss. See Doc. 23 at 2. On August 4, 2014, the Court granted without leave to amend Centex s motion to dismiss 10 11 Plaintiffs claim for equitable reimbursement. Doc. 26 ( the August 4, 2014 order ) at 6-7. The Court 12 relied on a subsequent order doing so in the Travelers case in which the Court acknowledged that it 13 erred in previously holding that Plaintiffs equitable reimbursement claim failed as a matter of law 14 because the state court lawsuit between the parties was ongoing at the time Plaintiffs filed this case. See 15 Travelers, 14-cv-217-LJO-GSA, Doc. 26 ( the Travelers order ) at 5, n.2. The Court further found that 16 Plaintiffs equitable reimbursement claim nonetheless failed because the SAC failed to allege facts 17 demonstrating that Plaintiffs immediately agreed to defend Centex in the underlying state court 18 lawsuit after Centex tendered the case to Plaintiffs. Id. at 6. The Court therefore granted without leave to 19 amend Centex s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs third claim for equitable reimbursement. Id. at 7. On August 19, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the Travelers 20 21 order. Travelers, 14-cv-217-LJO-GSA, Doc. 30 ( the Travelers reconsideration order ). The Court 22 granted Plaintiffs leave to amend to their third cause of action for equitable reimbursement. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the August 4, 23 24 2014 order. Doc. 32.1 For the reasons discussed in the Travelers reconsideration order, the Court 25 26 1 The Court construes Plaintiffs motion to have been brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 2 1 GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. The August 4, 2014 order (Doc. 25) is AMENDED to 2 grant Plaintiffs leave to amend. Any amended complaint shall be filed on or before September 26, 2014. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O Neill September 16, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.