Chloe Z Fishing Co. v. Odyssey Re (London) Ltd.

Good Law
109 F. Supp. 2d 1236·2000 WL 1234058·2000 A.M.C. 2409·2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12645
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaApril 26, 200099-2521-IEG RBBCalifornia14,888 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gonzalez, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION [Doc. No. 3]

Presently before the Court is defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the above-referenced proceedings. For the reasons discussed below, the Court hereby grants the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and orders that the action be stayed pending arbitration.

BACKGROUND

On September 24, 1999, Chloe Z Fishing Co., Inc., and eighteen other named plaintiffs (the “plaintiffs”) filed an action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, against two London based insurers — Odyssey Re (London) Ltd. and Sphere Drake Underwriting Management — and several Doe defendants (the “defendants”). On November 29, 1999, defendants removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b) and 9 U.S.C. § 205 based on original federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , as well as diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . (See Defs.’ Not. of Removal (11/29/99) at 2.)

1. The Parties

Plaintiffs are various corporate entities and individuals associated with the tuna-fishing operation established by the Zua-nich family over the course…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.