On May 14, 2019 a Appellate Materials was filed involving a dispute between Andrade, Carlos, Angel, Christian, Aparacio, Yuriana, Avilla, Marco, Camacho, Stephanie, Chang, Jessica, Cobos, Emily, Davila, Griselda, Flowers, Crystal, Gallegos, Robert, Greene, Sally, Hertado, Javier, Martinez, Arlene, Nguyen, Andy, Sanchez, Luiz, Smith, Charles, Tolkson, Danielle, Vale, Tiana, Vargas, Roberto, and All Star General Insurance Agency, Inc, All Star General Insurance Company, Auto Club Services, Llc, Cost-U-Less Insurance Center, Does 2 Through 120, Fiesta Auto Insurance Center, First Contempo Insurance Agency, Freeway Insurance Services, Integon National Insurance Company, Jack Olivera Insurance Services, Marisol'S Insurance Services, Inc, National General Insurance Company, National General Management Corp., New Millennium Insurance, One Way Insurance Services, Stonewood Insurance Services, Inc, Torres, Antonio Adolfo, Torres & Associates, Upgrade Insurance Services, Inc., for Complex Civil Unlimited in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
OR STEPHEN M. HAYES (SBN: 83583) TYLER R. AUSTIN (SBN 293977) HAYES SCOTT BONINO ELLINGSON & GUSLANI, LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Road, Suite 230 SUPERIOR Ol OF S, RNARDINO Redwood City, California 94065 SAN BERNARD! ING DISTRICT Telephone: (650) 637-9100 Facsimile: (650) 637-8071 JUL 1 8 2023 Attorneys for Defendant NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY shalt Pe SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 EMILY COBOS, CHRISTIAN ANGEL, CASE NO.: CIV DS 1914609 4 4 STEPHANIE CAMACHO, YURIANA APARACIO, GRISELDA DAVILA, LUIZ DEFENDANTS NATIONAL GENERAL IL SANCHEZ, ROBERT GALLEGOS, ROBERTO VARGAS, JESSICA CHANG, INSURANCE COMPANY AND INTEGON 12 CRYSTAL FLOWERS, ANDY NGUYEN, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY’S CHARLES SMITH, JAVIER HURTADO, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 13 MARCO AVILA, CARLOS ANDRADE, TO STAY PENDING APPEAL ARLENE MARTINEZ, SALLY GREENE, 14 DANIELLE TOLKSON AND TAINA VALE. AS INDIVIDUALS AND ON BEHALF OF Date: July 21, 2023 15 OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Time: 8:30 a.m. 16 Plaintiffs, Dept.: S17 17 Vv. 18 NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INTEGON NATIONAL 19 INSURANCE COMPANY, STONEWOOD Date Action Filed: May 14, 2019 INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., ALL STAR Trial Date: Not Yet Set 20 GENERAL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ALL STAR GENERAL INSURANCE 21 COMPANY, NEW MILLENNIUM INSURANCE, FREEWAY INSURANCE 22 SERVICES, ONE WAY INSURANCE SERVICES, JACK OLIVERA INSURANCE 23 SERVICES, COST-U-LESS INSURANCE CENTER, MARISOL’S INSURANCE 24 SERVICES, INC., AUTO CLUB SERVICES, LLC, TORRES & ASSOCIATES, FIRST 25 CONTEMPO INSURANCE AGENCY, FIESTA AUTO INSURANCE CENTER, 26 UPGRADE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., and DOES |through to 120, 27 Defendants. 28 2030322 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL CASE NO.: CIV DS 1914609 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION seseseneenesesseseseeseeeeneeeeneneesenencesaesenanansenseseanseneracsesererereeenaeaetenssaeeensestesees I PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY seeeeseeeeeeseeneeeseseeaesesateeeeeseseseeneeeee Ill. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 916 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE COURT’S CLASS CERTIFICATION RULING AND A STAY IS NOT APPROPRIATE A California Case Law Establishes There Should Not Be A Stay Because Further Proceedings Would Be Collateral To The Certification Order Being Appealed. eeseseececeseseeeesceeseenetaeeeeseeetsesetecsseeacseenesseetsene CCP § 916 Also Does Not Apply In This Case Because Further Trial Court Proceedings Would Not Have A Direct Impact On The Order Being Appealed seeeeseeeenesesneseeseetensaesreeeseneeeenene sedtessenee: Plaintiffs Failed To Establish That Continuing With Individual Cases Would Be Too Costly seseeseatensseseeneasseereerseereeen seseeeeseenen 10 D. The Court And Parties Have Several Procedural Options Available 11 To Proceed With This Litigation Pending Appeal seseeseseeeeeeseetenes . 12 E There Are No Discovery Related Problems That Would Justify Imposing A Stay. seeseeeeeaeeeeseanseeacansenaeeesseae 13 IV. CONCLUSION ateeeeeeee ateseeeeeeeseeeeeasseeeeeeseeaneeseeeee 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2030322 i+ DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL CASE NO.: CIV DS 1914609