The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticutet al v. BNSF Railway Company
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY Case No. 24-cv-06319-HSG COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, et al., 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Travelers, DISMISS OR STAY IN THE 9 ALTERNATIVE v. 10 Re: Dkt. No. 11
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
11
BNSF.
12 13 Before the Court is Defendant BNSF Railway Company’s motion to dismiss or 14 alternatively to stay Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for declaratory relief regarding its duty to 15 indemnify. Dkt. No. 11. The Court finds the matter appropriate for disposition without oral 16 argument and deems it submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The Court DENIES the motion. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 This dispute arises out of an underlying construction defect action. In 2013, BNSF 19 Railway Company (“BNSF”) purchased an easement from North Richmond Properties in order to 20 move a railway track across the location of the easement. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 20. BNSF 21 hired J.L. Patterson & Associates…