PHL Variable Insurance Company v. Continental Casualty Company
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE Case No. 19-cv-06799-CRB
COMPANY,
9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 10 REMAND AND DENYING AS MOOT v. ADDITIONAL MOTIONS 11
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY
12 COMPANY, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14 Now pending is Plaintiff PHL Variable Insurance Company’s (“PHL”) motion to remand 15 this action to the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco. Remand Mot. (dkt. 12) at 1. 16 PHL filed its First Amended Complaint in that court, seeking a declaration of its rights under 17 insurance policies it holds against Defendants Continental Casualty Company (“CNA”) and 18 Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (the “Lloyd’s Defendants”). See generally First 19 Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Notice of Removal (“Notice”) Ex. 2 (dkt. 1–3). CNA removed the 20 action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. Notice at 3. CNA requests that the Court deny 21 the motion to remand and dismiss or stay the action, or in the…