Crisco v. Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-07320
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Crisco v. Foremost, Judge Alsup denied the parties’ proposed briefing schedule for prospective partial summary-judgment motions on insurance coverage.
The ruling affected Patricia Crisco and the other plaintiffs, Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Foremost Property and Casualty Insurance Company by rejecting their proposed briefing schedule and setting the terms for any plaintiffs’ early motion.
What happened
Patricia Crisco and other plaintiffs sued Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Foremost Property and Casualty Insurance Company over insurance coverage involving mobile homes damaged in the 2017 Sonoma Complex fires. The order describes the plaintiffs as elderly and displaced by the fire damage.
The parties asked the court to approve a schedule for early motions addressing purely legal insurance-coverage issues. The proposed schedule included one motion by the plaintiffs, an opposition and separate motion by the defendants, and a hearing in September.
Judge William Alsup denied the stipulation. He said the parties did not need two separate fully briefed motions on the same issues and directed that any plaintiffs’ motion proceed on the standard 35-day schedule; he also declined to extend the remaining deadlines.
The detailed version
- Crisco v. Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan · No. 3:19-cv-07320
- William Alsup
- July 8, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs brought an insurance-coverage action against Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Foremost Property and Casualty Insurance Company. The order states that the insured property consisted of mobile homes damaged in the 2017 Sonoma Complex fires and that the elderly plaintiffs were displaced by that damage.
The proposed schedule
By stipulation, the parties asked the court to set a briefing schedule for prospective partial summary-judgment motions limited to purely legal insurance-coverage issues. The proposed schedule called for the plaintiffs to file one motion, followed by the defendants’ opposition and an additional defendants’ motion addressing the coverage issue raised by the plaintiffs’ motion. The parties proposed briefing through September and a hearing as early as possible during that month.
The parties also proposed continuing with remaining discovery and dispositive-motion deadlines. The court noted that the parties believed early resolution of the legal issues would be in the plaintiffs’ best interest.
Ruling
Judge William Alsup denied the stipulation. The court stated that the parties were free to bring early motions for partial summary judgment, but it would not approve the proposed schedule. The court said the parties did not need to file two separate, fully briefed motions on the same insurance-coverage issues, particularly because the motions would concern only legal issues and could leave open additional dispositive motions.
The court directed that the plaintiffs’ motion, if filed, should be brought as soon as they chose and would be heard on the standard 35-day schedule. The court also declined to extend the remaining deadlines, finding that neither side had shown the hardship or inequity required to justify a stay. The order did not decide the insurance-coverage issues themselves.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.