Notice NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION EXHIBIT A PART 1 OF 2 - Notice July 22, 2020 (2024)

 
Preview
 Vanessa O. Wells, SBN 121279 ChristopherJ. Cox, SBN 151650 Victoria C. Brown, SBN 117217 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Electronically Filed 4085 Campbell Ave., Suite 100 7/22/2020 11:18 AM Menlo Park, CA 94025 Superior Court of California Tel: (650) 463-4000 County of Stanislaus Fax: (650) 463-4199 Clerk of the Court vanessa.Wells@ hoganlovells.com By: Carly Bonzi, Deputy chris.cox@ hoganlovells.com victoria.brown@ hoganlovells.com Attorneys for Defendants Mid-Century Insurance Company, Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, and Truck Insurance Exchange 10 INTHE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 12 AMERICAN TRADERS, INC. D/B/A Case No. CV-20-002477 RAMADA INN MODESTO, 13 EXHIBIT A— PART 1 OF 2 (PAGES 1 Plaintiff, IR HH PAGE: 14 IF IN OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION 15 MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, | Assigned Judge: Hon. John D. Freeland 16 FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FIRE INSURANCE EX CHANGE, AND 17 TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, and DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28HOGAN LovELLs US EXHIBITA— PART 10F 2TO LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATIONEXHIBIT AVanessaO. Wells, SBN 121279 Christo} Cox, SBN 151650 Victoria C. own, SBN 117217 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 4085 bell Ave., Suitel 00 Menlo CA 94025 Tel: (650) 463-4000 Fax: (650) 463-4199 vanessa. wells@hoganlovells.com chris.cox@hoganlovells.com victoria brown@hoganlovells.com Michael M. Maddi SBN 163450 Vassi Iliadis, SBN 296382 LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Fos at es, California 90067 Tel: 785-460010 Fax: B10) 785-4601 mic lovells.com11 vassi. iliadis@ lovells.com12 Attorneys for the Farmers Defendants1314 CHAIRPERSON OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL15 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.16 SCRATCH RESTAURANTS, INC., dba Los At lesS or Court Phillip Douglas LLC and Scratch Bar Case No. 20STCP0123317 Assigned to the Hon. Ruth A. Kwan and Kitchen and Sushi Bar Los Angeles18 and Sushi Bar Montecito, a limited PETITION FOR COORDINATION FOR liability company,19 APPLICATION FOR STAY ORDER Plaintiff,20 [Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Vv. Declaration of Michael M.21 submit concurrently herewith]22 FARMERS GROUP, INC., a corporation; Included Actions: TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, a23 corporation; and; DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, San Francisco Si or Court 583996 Case No, CGC-2 Defendants. Assigned to the Hon. GarrettL. Wong25 San Francisco Si or Court 584269 Case No, CGC-226 Assigned to the Hon. GarrettL. Wong27 Los At S or Court Case No. 20: 0032528 PETITION FOR COORDINATION:Assigned to the Hon. Peter A. Hernandez Los At lesS ior Court Case No. 20STCV 19129 Assigned to the Hon. William Claster Contra Costa Si ior Court Case No. CIV: '20-00901 Assignedto the Hon. Jill Fannin Los At lesS ior Court Case No. 20STCV 20188 Assigned to the Hon. Amy D. Hogue Co ior Court Case No. 30- 200 140970-CU-IC-CXC Assigned to the Hon. William D. Claster10 Lake Co S ior Court Case No. -42074311 [Not Yet Assigned]12 Stanislaus Superior Court Case No. CV-20-247713 Assigned to the Hon. John D. Freeland14 Los At lesS ior Court Case No. 20STCV 2245115 [Not Yet Assigned]16 San Francisco Si ior Court Case No, CGC-258476217 Assigned to the Hon. GarrettL. Wong18 Riverside Co S ior Court Case No. RIC2 26719 [Not Yet Assigned]2021222325262728 PETITION FOR COORDINATIONTO THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL: Pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure §§ 404, et seq., defendants Truck Insurance Exchange, Farmers Group, Inc., Truck Underwriters Association, Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, and Mid-Century Insurance Company (hereinafter “Farmers Defendants”) hereby submit this Petition to the Chair of the Judicial Council for assignment of a judge to determine whether coordination of the following “complex” actions is appropriate for pretrial purposes (collectively, the “Included Actions”): Outerlands, Inc. v. Truck Insurance Exchange, No. CGC-20-583996 (San 10 Francisco Super. Ct., filed March 30, 2020); 11 Scratch Restaurants LLC dba Phillip Douglas LLC, et al. v. Farmers Group Inc., et 12 al., No. 20STCP01233 (Los Angeles Super. Ct, filed April 1, 2020); 13 New Restaurant Group LP, et al. v. Farmers Group, Inc., et al. , No. CGC-20- 14 584269 (San Francisco Super. Ct, filed April 30, 2020); 15 Boca J.P. Inc. v. Farmers Group Inc., No. 20PSCV00325 (Los Angeles Super. Ct, 16 filed May 15, 2020); 17 Odessa Investment Corp. dba The Great Frame Up #672 v. Farmers Group, Inc. 18 et al., No. 20STCV20188 (Los Angeles Super. Ct, filed May 26, 2020); 19 Bulk, LLC v. Truck Insurance Exchange, et al., No. 20STCV19129 (Los Angeles Super. Ct, filed May 18, 2020); 20 Uncle Sharkii, LLC v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, No. CIVMSC20-00901 21 (Contra Costa Super. Ct, filed May 22, 2020); 22 Saddleback Medical Management, Inc. v. Mid-Century Insurance Company, et al., 23 No. 30-2020-01140970-CU-IC-CXC (Orange County Super. Ct, filed May 26, 2020); 24 : 25 § per. an LLC v. Truck Insurance Exchange, No. CV-420743 (Lake Cty. Ct, filed May 26, 2020); 26 American Traders, Inc. dba Ramada Inn Modesto v. Mid-Century Insurance 27 Company, et al., No. CV-20-2477 (Stanislaus Super. Ct., filed June 4, 2020); 28 West Covina Restaurant Group, Inc., et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, No.HOGAN LOVELLs US LLP s ORNEYS AT LAW 1 PETITION FOR COORDINATION:20STCV 22451 (Los Angeles Super. Ct., filed June 9, 2020); Atelier1 2 3 Restaurant LLC, dba Atelier Crenn, et . v. Farmers Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-20-584762 (S.F. Super. Ct, filed June 15, 2020); and Chunying Investments Inc., dba Dragon House v. Farmers Group, Inc., et al. Case No. RIC2002673 (Riverside Super Ct, filed July 17, 2020) (the “Chunying Investments Action”). This Petition is made on behalf of all of the above-referenced Farmers Defendants directly to the Chairperson of the Judicial Council pursuantto Section 404. See Cal. Civ. Proc., § 404 (“[A] petition for coordination may be submitted to the Chairperson of the Judicial Council, . . . by all of the parties plaintiff or defendant in any such action.”) No10 other defendants are named in the Included Actions.11 As described in the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the12 Farmers Defendants make this Petition on the grounds that coordinating the Included13 Actions before one judge for pretrial purposes will promote the ends of justice as required14 by Code of Civil Procedure §§ 404 and 404.1. The Included Actions, all of which are15 “complex” and arise out of COVID-19-related coverage claims submitted to the Farmers16 Defendants, raise the same or overlapping theories and assert many of the same causes of17 action under Califomia law. Therefore, common questions of law are significant.18 Coordination of the Included Actions in one proceeding also will advance the convenience19 of parties, witnesses, and counsel, and will promote the efficient utilization of judicial20 facilities and avoid multiple hearings on similar motions in different courts. Further, the21 relative development and nascent procedural postures of the Included Actions support22 coordination.23 The Farmers Defendants request that any hearing on this Petition and the coordinated proceedings in the Included Actions be assigned to the Complex Civil25 Litigation Division of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. See Cal. Civ. Proc., § 404.3; CRC 3.540. And given the efficiencies sought by coordination, the26 Farmers Defendants respectfully request that the matters be stayed pending a decision on27 this Petition.28 2: PETITION FOR COORDINATIONAs required under Rule 3.521(a)(2) of the Califomia Rules of Court, the full title of each action, the names of all parties, and the names and addresses of counsel are set forth in the Declaration of Michael M. Maddigan (“Maddigan Declaration”), filed concurrently herewith. In anticipation of filing this Petition, counsel for the Farmers Defendants attempted to meet and confer with counsel for Plaintiffs in each of the Included Actions regarding coordination of all Actions. See Maddigan Decl., 18; Declaration of ChristopherJ. Cox (“Cox Decl.”), 43. Plaintiffs in 11 of the 13 Included Actions have agreed to coordination, and counsel for the Farmers Defendants has not yet received a response10 from counsel in two Actions as of the date of this Petition. Maddigan Decl., 118. Most11 Plaintiffs agree that Los Angeles County is an appropriate court for these purposes.12 Maddigan Decl., 118; Cox Decl., 13.1314 Dated: July 20, 2020 Respectfully submitted,15 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP .16 PAARM17 By: Michael M. Maddigan, SBN 16345018 Vassi Iliadis, SBN 296382 1999 Avenue of the Stars, STE 140019 Los Angeles, CA 90067 michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com20 vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com21 Vanessa O. Wells, SBN 121279 ChristopherJ. Cox, SBN 15165022 Victoria C. Brown, SBN 117217 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP23 4085 C Ave., Suitel 00 Menlo CA 94025 Tel: (650) 463-400025 Fax: (650) 463-4199 vanessa.wells@hoganlovells.com26 chris.cox@hoganlovells.com victoria brown@hoganlovells.com27 Attorneys for Farmers Defendants28 3 PETITION FOR COORDINATIONVanessa O. Wells, SBN 121279 Christo} . Cox, SBN 151650 Victoria C. Brown, SBN 117217 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 4085 bell Ave., Suitel 00 Menlo CA 94025 Tel: (650) 463-4000 Fax: (650) 463-4199 vanessa.wells@hoganlovells.com chris.cox@hoganlovells.com victoria brown@hoganlovells.com Michael M. Maddi SBN 163450 Vassi Iliadis, SBN 296382 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 es, Califormia 90067 10 Tel: (310) 785-4600 Fax: (310) 785-4601 11 michael.maddi hoganlovells.com vassi. iliadis@ lovells.com 12 Attorneys for the Farmers Defendants 13 CHAIRPERSON OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL 14 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 15 SCRATCH RESTAURANTS, INC., dba Los At lesS ior Court 16 Phillip Douglas LLC and Scratch Bar Case No. 20STCP01233 and Kitchen and Sushi Bar Los Angeles Assigned to the Hon. Ruth A. Kwan 17 and Sushi Bar Montecito, a limited MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 18 liability company, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND 19 Plaintiff, APPLICATION FOR STAY ORDER 20 Vv. Included Actions: 21 San Francisco Si ior Court FARMERS GROUP, INC., a corporation; 583996 Case No, CGC-2 22 TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, a Assigned to the Hon. GarrettL. Wong corporation; and; DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, 23 San Francisco Si ior Court Defendants. 584269 Case No, CGC-2 24 Assigned to the Hon. GarrettL. Wong 25 Los AngelesS ior Court Case No. 20) 00325 26 Assignedto the Hon. Peter A. Hernandez. 27 Los At lesS ior Court Case No. 20STCV 19129 28 Assigned to the Hon. William ClasterHOGAN LoVELLs US s ORNEYS AT Law MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESContra Costa Si ior Court Case No. CIV: '20-00901 Assignedto the Hon. Jill Fannin Los At lesS ior Court Case No. 20STCV 20188 Assigned to the Hon. Amy D. Hogue Case Ri BORO LAOS CULIC-CXC Assignedto the Hon. William D. Claster Lake Co Case No. ago [Not Yet Assigned] Stanislaus Si ior Court 10 Case No. CV-20-2477 Assigned to the Hon. John D. Freeland 11 Los At lesS ior Court 12 Case No. 20STCV 22451 [Not Yet Assigned] 13 San Francisco Si ior Court 14 584762 Case No, CGC-2 Assigned to the Hon. GarrettL. Wong 15 Riverside Co Superior Court 16 Case No. RIC2 2 [Not Yet Assigned] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28HOGAN LoVELLs US ATTORNEYS AT Law MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESTABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. IL STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A Nature of the Actions B Procedural Status of the Included Actions Ill. ANALYSIS... A The Included Actions Are Complex... B These Actions Meet And Exceed The Requirements For 10 Coordination. 10 11 C. If Coordination Is Granted, The Actions Should Be Coordinated In Los Angeles County. 13 12 THESE ACTIONS SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING A RULING 13 ON THIS PETITION. .......scssessssssessessessesssesscssesssssesssesesscsssssesssesessesssessssseesesseesnesees 14 14 PLAINTIFFS’ POSITION 15 15 VI CONCLUSION 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28HOGAN LoVELLS. “i US LLP ATTORNEYSAT Law MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESTABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Citicorp N. Am, Inc. v. Super. Ct, 213 Cal. App. 3d 563 (1989) 10 Ford Motor Warranty Cases, 11 Cal. App. 5th 626, 643 (2017), reh’ g denied (May 25, 2017) 12 McGhan Med. Corp. v. Super. Ct., 11 Cal. App. 4th 804 (1992) 11, 12 Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, 10 92 Cal. App. 4th 819 (2001) 11 Statutes 12 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 404.1 oo. eeeseessessesssessnsesnesssesssessseessesseesseesseesstessesssessessseessess 7,10 13 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 404.2 oo. eesesessesssssnsesnessnessnesssessseessesseesseesstesstessessessesssesssessnets 11 14 15 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 404.5 ooo. esessessesssessnessuessnesssesssessusessessesseesseesstessessessesssesssesssess 14 16 Rules 17 Califomia Rules of Court Rule 3.400.........s:sssssssssscssseesseseeseesecueeneeneeseenseceesesseeneensenees 7,8 18 Califomia Rules of Court Rule 3.515(f) 14 19 Califomia Rules of Court Rule 3.521(a) 12 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28HoGAN LovELLs US ‘I LLP a DRNEYS AT LAW MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES1 I INTRODUCTION 2 Defendants Truck Insurance Exchange, Farmers Group, Inc., Truck Underwriters Association, Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, and Mid-Century Insurance Company (hereinafter “Farmers Defendants”) seek coordination of the following related actions which are currently pending in superior courts throughout Califomia, including Los Angeles, Orange, San Francisco, Contra Costa, Lake, Stanislaus, and Riverside Counties (the “Included Actions”) e Outerlands, Inc. v. Truck Insurance Exchange, No. CGC-20-583996 (San Francisco Super. Ct., filed March 30, 2020) (the “Outerlands Action”) 10 Scratch Restaurants LLC dba Phillip Douglas LLC, et al. v. Farmers Group Inc., et al., No. 20STCP01233 (Los Angeles Super. Ct., filed April 1, 2020) (the “Scratch 11 Restaurants Action”) 12 New Restaurant Group LP, et al. v. Farmers Group, Inc., et al., No. CGC-20- 13 584269 (San Francisco Super. Ct., filed April 30, 2020) (the “New Restaurant Action”) 14 15 Boca J.P. Inc. v. Farmers Group Inc., No. 20PSCV00325 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. filed May 15, 2020) (the “Boca J.P. Action”) 16 17 Odessa Investment Corp. dba The Great Frame Up #672 v. Farmers Group, Inc. et al., No. 20STCV20188 (Los Angeles Super. Ct, filed May 26, 2020) (the 18 “Odessa Investment Action”). 19 Bulk, LLC v, Ti et al., No. 20ST" 'CV19129 (Los Angeles 20 Super. Ct, ‘ited May 18, 18, 2020) One Ye “ Action”); 21 Uncle Sharkii, LLC v. Farmers Insurance Exc » No. CIVMSC20-00901 (Contra Costa Super. Ct, filed May 22, 2020) (the “Uncle Sharkii Action”); 22 Saddleback Medical Management, Inc. v. Mid-Century Insurance Company, et al 23 No. 30-2020-01140970-CU-IC-CXC (Orange County Super. Ct, filed May 26 2020) (the “Saddleback Medical Management Action”) 24 25 SoaniUIper.Investments, LLC v. Truck Insurance je, No. CV-420743 Ct., filed May 26, 2020) (the “Jani Investments Action”); (Lake Cty. 26 American Traders, Inc. dba Ramada Inn Modesto v. Mid-Century Insurance 27 Company, et al., No. CV-20-2477 (Stanislaus Super. Ct., filed June 4, 2020) (the “American Traders Action”). 28HOGAN LOVELLs US LLP 1 s ArL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESWest Covina Restaurant Grot Inc., et al. v. FarmersI: , No. 20STCV 22451 (Los Angeles per, ‘Ct, filed June 9, 2020) (the Nee Coin Restaurant Group Action”); Atelier1 2 3 Restaurant LLC, dba Atelier Crenn, ), Inc. . al., Case No. CGC- 20-584762 (S.F. Super. Ct., Aled fare. 15, 2020) Ge “Crenn Action’); and Inc., dba Dray mn Housev. Farmers Grorup, Inc., etal. Case Ke CSOT tis (Riveerside Super , filed July 17, 2020) (the *‘Chunying Investrents Action”). The 13 Included Actions are class action and individual lawsuits filed by local restaurants, bars, hotels, retail stores, and other businesses against one or more of the Farmers Defendants in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Each of these lawsuits 10 alleges that the Farmers Defendants improperly denied insureds’ claims for business 11 income losses and extra expenses allegedly suffered as a result the COVID-19 pandemic, 12 purportedly due to COVID-19 related orders and mandates issued by the State of 13 Califomia and local authorities. 14 The Included A ctions—which are “complex”'—raise the same or overlapping legal 15 theories and assert many of the same causes of action under Califomia law. All arise out 16 of COVID-19-related coverage claims submitted to the Farmers Defendants. All require 17 interpretation under Califomia law of the same key terms from the same policy form. 18 Procedurally, these Actions are in theirinfancy. They were filed only recently and some 19 have not yet been served. 20 The interests of the Court, witnesses, and parties weigh heavily against separately 21 litigating the Included Actions one-by-one, given the duplication of efforts and costs that: 22 would be required. Indeed, coordinated treatment of the Included Actions not only would 23 promote the fair and efficient use of the Court’s and parties’ resources, but also is 24 essential to avoid the risk of conflicting or duplicative rulings on issues critical to all of 25 the Actions. The Farmers Defendants further request that the Included Actions be stayed 26 pending the resolution of this Petition. 27 28 | See Part IIL, A., below.HOGAN LovELLS US LLP s ArL 2: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESIn anticipation of filing this Petition, counsel for the Farmers Defendants attempted to meet and confer with counsel for Plaintiffs in each of the Included Actions regarding coordination. See Declaration of Michael M. Maddigan (“Maddigan Decl.”), 118; see also Declaration of ChristopherJ. Cox (“Cox Decl.”), 13. As described below, Plaintiffs in 11 of the 13 Included Actions have agreed to coordination. Id. Counsel for the Farmers Defendants has not yet received a response from counsel in two Actions as of the date of this Petition. Maddigan Decl., 418. I STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Nature of the Actions 10 The insurer Farmers Defendants’ issued business owners’ policies to Plaintiffs, 11 each of which contained certain identical provisions under which Plaintiffs claim 12 coverage. The first, frequently referred to as “business interuptio coverage, provides: 13 We will pay for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain due to the ion of your “operations” during the “period ot 14 restoration.” ion must be caused. direct ical loss of or at the described ses. loss or damage must be 15 mee orresult froma Covered ‘ause of Loss. 16 See Maddigan Decl., 15, Ex. B(1), 14.5.£.(1).3 17 The second, known as “Civil Authority” coverage, provides: 18 Wewill for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain and 19 necessary access to the Geibed property, other than at caused SESds acti ion of civil authority that prohibits to direct physical loss of or damage to described premises, caused by or resulting from 20 any Covered Cause of Loss. 21 Seeid, A.5.i. 22 As described in more detail below, all of the complaints proceed according to a 23 theory that the COVID-19 pandemic - decoupled from the SARS-CoV-2 virus defining 24 the pandemic* - through the instrumentality of various state and local COVID-19 related 25 26 ? Farmers Gro Fire Insurance insurancei Ex Inc. isSeenotCal. C an insurer. It is the “attomey in fact” for Farmers, Truck, and €XC! are Ins. Code Div. 1 Part 2 C) ip organizations peculiar to 27 “Covered Cause of Loss” is defined as “Risks of Direct Physical ‘Loss....” Maddigan 28 Pedi. 915, Ex. B(1) A.3. reason many Plaintiffs attempt to disassociatethe pandemic from the vinusis thatHOGAN LovELLS US LLP s ORNEYS AT LAW 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESStay-At-Home orders (or perhaps regardless of those orders), caused Plaintiffs to lose the use of their business premises as a result of which they lost business income. Plaintiffs all contend that the Business Interruption and Civil Authority provisions provide coverage under this theory. Although the Included Actions involve different businesses, some different Stay- At-Home orders, and individualized alleged facts, they share the same core questions under Califomia law: the proper interpretation of the policy form at issue and the viability of central, common legal theories. See Maddigan Decl., 14, Exs. A-M (attaching Complaints of each Included Action) 10 Specifically, the Actions allege that the Farmers Defendants provided commercial 11 property coverage to each insured and improperly denied their claims for Business 12 Intenuption coverage (or for Business Income losses and Extra Expenses) and/or Civil 13 Authority coverage for losses purportedly suffered as a result of the Stay-At-Home orders 14 from the State of Califomia and/or local authorities that (i) directed the public to cancel 15 norressential gatherings and to stay at home or “shelter-in-place,” and (ii) required 16 Closure or curtailment of non-essential businesses. Id. Ex. A (Outerlands Am. Compl. 17 9 14-33); Ex. B (Scratch Restaurants Compl., {1 36-38); Ex. C (New Restaurant Compl. 18 | 90-97); Ex. D (Boca J.P. Compl., {f] 23-24); Ex. E (Bulk Compl., ("1 66-72), Ex. F 19 (Uncle Sharkii Compl., (16, 31); Ex. G (Odessa Investment Compl., {12, 7, 56); Ex. H 20 (Saddleback Medical Management Compl., {ff 60-66); Ex. I (Jani Investments Compl. 21 9 30-33); Ex. J (American Traders Compl., {| 64-65); Ex. K (West Covina Restaurant 22 Group Compl., 31, 36-39); Ex. L (Crenn Compl., 152-59, 68-71, 93-96); Ex. M 23 (Chunying Investments Compl., {ff 20-23) 24 The Included Actions also assert common legal theories. Relying on the Business 25 Income, Extra Expense, and/or Civil Authority provisions in their policies, Plaintiffs 26 assert that the Stay-At-Home orders caused “direct physical loss of or damage to the 27 28 the Li form includes an “EXCLUSION OF LOSS DUE TO VIRUS OR ” Sei Endorsem*nt63 (HOGAN LovELLS US LLP s ArL 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESproperty” because Plaintiffs were unable to use their properties when following orders. Id. Ex. A (Outerlands Am. Compl., 453 ); Ex. B (Scratch Restaurants Compl., 142- 44); Ex. C (New Restaurant Compl., {1 126-127); Ex. D (BocaJ.P. Compl., 429-30); Ex. E (Bulk Compl. {f/ 95-105), Ex. F (Uncle Sharkii Compl., {f] 55-58); Ex. G (Odessa Investment Compl., {| 48-51); Ex. H (Saddleback Medical Management Compl., 139); Ex. I (Jani Investrrents Compl., 4155); Ex.J (American Traders Compl., 71). The Included Actions further allege that none of the exclusions in their policies apply. See, eg., Maddigan Decl., 4, Ex. A (Outerlands Am. Compl., 53 ); Ex. C (New Restaurant Compl., {9 75-86 ); Ex. E (Bulk Compl. {| 106-113 ); Ex. F (Uncle Sharkii Compl., {1 59, 10 66); Ex. G (Odessa Investment Compl., 52); Ex. H (Saddleback Medical Management 11 Commpl., {| 38-39 ); Ex.J (American Traders Compl., ] 105-112); Ex. K (West Covina 12 Restaurant Group Compl., 53); Ex. L (Crenn Compl., 75-76). 13 Five of the Included Actions, Bulk, Uncle Sharkii, Odessa Investment, Saddleback 14 Medical Management, and American Traders, are class actions that purport to assert 15 claims on behalf of overlapping putative classes consisting of Califomia policyholders 16 insured under a policy issued by one or more of the Farmers Defendants whose covered 17 premises were the subject of a Stay-At-Home order and who filed a claim under their 18 policies for lost business income and were denied coverage. Id. Ex. E (Bulk Compl. 74 19 (defining class as “[alll policyholders who are insured under a policy issued by 20 Defendants with coverage for Business Income, Extended Business Income, and/or Extra 21 Expense, who are citizens of the State of Califomia, and whose covered premises were the 22 subject of a govemment order relating to COVID-19.”)); Ex. F (Uncle Sharkii Compl., 23 41 (defining class as “[aJll restaurants in Califomia that purchased comprehensive 24 business insurance coverage from Defendant which includes coverage for business 25 interruption, filed a claim for lost business income following Califomia’s Stay at Home 26 order, and were denied coverage by Defendant.”)); Ex. G (Odessa Investment Compl., 27 62 (defining class as “[aJll Califomia Retail/Service Businesses with a Farmers 28 Businessowners Policy who, following Califomia’s Stay-at-Home Order, made a claimHOGAN LovELLS US LLP s ORNEYS AT LAW Ss MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESwith Fanmvers under the policy for lost business income from operations at one or more Califomia Covered Premises and who was denied coverage.”)); Ex. H (Saddleback Medical Management Compl., 168 (defining class as “[alll policyholders who are insured under a policy issued by Defendants with coverage for Business Income, Extended Business Income, and/or Extra Expense, who are citizens of the State of Califomia, and whose covered premises were the subject of a govemment order relating to COVID- 19,”)); Ex.J (American Traders Compl., {173 (defining class as “[alll policyholders who are insured under a policy issued by Defendants with coverage for Business Income, Extended Business Income, Civil Authority, Tips Included, Dependent Property and/or 10 Extra Expense, who are citizens of the State of Califomia, and whose covered premises 11 were the subject of a govemment order relating to COVID-19.”)). 12 Based on these common allegations, the Included Actions assert many of the same 13 causes of action. All of the Included Actions assert a cause of action for declaratory 14 judgment. Ten of the Included Actions also assert a breach of contract cause of action 15 (Outerlands, New Restaurant, Bulk, Uncle Sharkii, Odessa Investment, Saddleback 16 Medical Management, Jani Investments, American Traders, West Covina Restaurant 17 Group, and Crenn). Several Actions allege additional claims such as (i) breach of implied 18 covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Outerlands, Uncle Sharkii, Odessa Investment, 19 New Restaurant, Jani Investments, West Covina Restaurant Group, and Crenn), (ii) bad 20 faith denial of insurance claim (Outerlands andJ ani Investrents), (iii) unjust enrichment 21 (Outerlands and J ani Investments), and (iv) violations of the Califomia Unfair 22 Competition Law (Outerlands, New Restaurants, Jani Investments, and Crenn). Each of 23 these causes of action will involve interpretation and application of Califomia law. 24 The Included Actions also seek essentially the same relief, including declaratory 25 relief, actual damages, compensatory damages, attomey’s fees and costs. Many of the 26 Included Actions also seek punitive or exemplary damages, injunctive relief, restitutionary 27 disgorgement and—for the class actions—orders certifying the classes. 28HOGAN LovELLS US LLP s ORNEYS AT LAW 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESB. ‘Procedural Status of the Induded Adions Each of the Included Actions was filed between March 30 and July 17. The Fanmers Defendants have not yet been formally served in four of the Included Actions: Odessa Investment, Uncle Sharkii, West Covina Restaurant Group, and Chunying Investments. Maddigan Decl. 7. The Actions in which the Farmers Defendants have been served, American Traders, Saddleback Medical Management, Boca J.P., Bulk, New Restaurant, Outerlands, Crenn, Jani Investments, and Scratch Restaurants, are in their procedural infancy. Id. OnJuly 2, the Farmers Defendants filed answers to complaints in two Included Actions, New Restaurant and Outerlands. Id. The next deadline for the Fanmers Defendants to respond to a complaint is July 23 (American Traders and. 10 Saddleback Medical Management). Id. No motions have been filed, and discovery has 11 been propounded in only one Action (Outerlands). Id. Further, initial case management 12 conferences have been scheduled in nine of the Included Actions: Saddleback Medical 13 Management (August 26), Outerlands (September 2), Odessa Investments (September 4), 14 Scratch Restaurants (September 9), New Restaurant (September 30), American Traders 15 (October 5), Boca J.P. (October 14), Uncle Sharkii (October 9), and Crenn (November 16 18). Id. 17 Til. ANALYSIS 18 A. The Induded Aciions Are Complex 19 20 The Farmers Defendants—the only named defendants in the Included Actions— 21 properly bring this petition for coordination before the Chairperson of the Judicial Council 22 under Code of Civil Procedure Section 404 because the actions are complex, as described below. See Cal. Civ. Proc., § 404 (“[A] petition for coordination may be submitted to the 23 24 Chairperson of the Judicial Council, . . . by all of the parties plaintiff or defendant in any such action.”); § 404.1. 25 26 Rule 3.400 of the Califomia Rules of Court defines a “complex case” as one that 27 “requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the 28 court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promoteHOGAN LovELLS US LLP s ORNEYS AT LAW 7: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESeffective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel.” CRC 3.400(a). Certain cases are “provisionally” complex if they involve “[c]laims involving class actions” or “Tijnsurance coverage claims arising out of any of the claims” specified in the rule including, but not limited to, class action claims. Id. 3.400(c) (setting forth seven types of Claims that make an action provisionally complex). Fora case that is not provisionally complex, courts must determine whether the action is complex under the definition in Rule 3.400. In doing so, courts “must consider, among other things, whether the action is likely to involve: (1) Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve; (2) 10 Management 

Related Contentin Stanislaus County