1 Wyatt A. Lison (SBN – 316775)

FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE

2 & KRAVEC, LLC 429 Fourth Avenue 3 Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 4 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 Facsimile: (412) 281-1007 5 Email: wlison@fdpklaw.com 6 Monique Olivier (SBN – 190385) Christian Schreiber (SBN – 245597) 7 OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP 475 14th Street, Suite 250 8 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 9 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 Email: monique@os-legal.com 10 Email: christian@os-legal.com 11 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 12 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 CARLA JACKSON, DENISE GRIFFIN, and JAMIE PETTIT, on behalf of Case No.: 4:22-cv-02628-JST 16 themselves and all others similarly situated,

STIPULATION TO STAY ALL

17 Plaintiffs, PROCEEDINGS PENDING OUTCOME

OF RELATED SUPERIOR COURT

18 vs. ACTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER *AS MODIFIED* 19 ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY and ESURANCE PROPERTY 20 AND CASUALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiffs Carla Jackson, Denise Griffin, and Jamie Pettit (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and 2 Defendants Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company and Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance 3 Company (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate, agree 4 and respectfully request that this Court enter an Order as follows: 5 WHEREAS, on March 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this putative class action in 6 the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, Case. No. 22CV008706 (ECF No. 7 1-1), challenging Defendants’ use of marital status as rating factor in setting premiums for private 8 passenger motor vehicle liability insurance policies in California as violative of California’s Rosenthal 9 Auto Insurance Nondiscrimination Law (“RAIN Law”) and Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”); 10 WHEREAS, on April 29, 2022, Defendants filed their Notice of Removal in this Court (ECF 11 No. 1); 12 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs contend that a core legal issue in the instant putative class action is 13 whether the Commissioner of the California Department of Insurance’s regulations permitting the use 14 of marital status as an optional premium rating factor in setting premiums for private passenger motor 15 vehicle liability insurance policies is invalid in light of the RAIN Law and Unruh Act specifically 16 prohibiting discrimination based upon marital status; 17 WHEREAS, on March 7, 2022, Plaintiffs, along with other individuals not party to the instant 18 class action, separately filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate (the “Petition”) in the Superior Court of the 19 State of California, County of Alameda, against the Commissioner of the California Department of 20 Insurance (“Commissioner”), Ison et al. v. Commissioner of the California Department of Insurance, 21 Case No. 22CV008022, pending in Department 20 before Judge Richard Seabolt, seeking an order 22 determining that the regulations are invalid and compelling the Commissioner to rescind the regulations 23 that allow private passenger motor vehicle insurers to use marital status as an optional premium rating 24 factor or otherwise amend the regulations to eliminate use of marital status as an optional premium 25 rating factor, and to require all private passenger motor vehicle insurers whose current class plans use 26 marital status as a premium rating factor to file new class plans eliminating marital status as a premium 27 rating factor; 1 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs contend that the core legal issues presented by the Petition, namely 2 whether the RAIN Law and Unruh Act prohibit marital status discrimination as a premium rating factor 3 and whether the Commissioner’s existing regulations which permit such discrimination are invalid, 4 overlap with the core legal issues presented in the instant class action; 5 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that judicial economy and efficiency would be 6 advanced by resolving the Petition challenging the validity of the Commissioners’ regulations in the 7 Writ of Mandate proceedings before proceeding with this action; and therefore, the Parties favor a stay 8 of all proceedings in the instant class action pending resolution of the Petition; 9 WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that, “the power to stay proceedings is 10 incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 11 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” (Landis v. North American Co., 12 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936)); 13 WHEREAS, this Court has discretion to order a stay of all proceedings in this action pending 14 the resolution of the Petition; 15 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that ordering a stay of all proceedings in this action 16 pending resolution of the Petition is proper for the reasons set forth herein; 17 WHEREAS, as in this action where the parties are requesting a stay pending the resolution of a 18 petition for writ of mandate filed in a California superior court, the resolution of which likely will bear 19 on legal issues in this action, several U.S. District Courts in California have similarly granted stays of 20 actions before them pending resolution of a petition for writ of mandate separately filed in a California 21 superior court (See Applegate v. Trausch, No. 1:15-cv-00811 AWI DLB PC, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 41574, 22 at *3-5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2016) (citing Landis as authority to order stay of case); Thornbrough v. W. 23 Placer Unified Sch. Dist., No. 2:09-cv-02613-GEB-GGH, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94021, at *2-9 (E.D. 24 Cal. Aug. 23, 2010) (also citing Landis as authority to grant stay of case); 25 WHEREAS, the California Superior Court’s ruling on the Petition regarding the validity of the 26 Commissioner’s regulations permitting use of marital status as a premium rating factor likely will also 27 impact and inform the course of litigation in this action, potentially narrowing the legal issues and 1 WHEREAS, the Respondent Commissioner in Ison et al. v. Commissioner of the California 2 Department of Insurance, Case No. 22CV008022, Superior Court of the State of California, County of 3 Alameda, has already answered the Petition and the parties are now engaged in discovery, showing that 4 the proceedings in Ison et al. v. Commissioner of the California Department of Insurance will likely be 5 concluded within a reasonable time in relation to the urgency of the claims presented in the instant 6 action; 7 WHEREAS, the parties in this action will not be prejudiced by the Court ordering a stay of all 8 proceedings in this action pending the resolution of the Petition, and once the stay is lifted, Defendants 9 reserve all of their rights in defense of the claims, including but not limited to the right to seek dismissal 10 of the claims; 11 WHEREAS, Defendants expressly reserve their right to move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims on 12 any ground, and Plaintiffs agree that Defendants’ entry into this stipulation and request for stay does 13 not waive any argument that Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to dismissal; 14 WHEREAS, the Parties disagree as to whether this case is related to Amaya, et al. v. GEICO 15 Indemnity Company, et al., 4:22-cv-02334-YGR (the “GEICO Action”) and Griffin, et al. v. 16 Progressive West Insurance Company, et al., 4:22-cv-02634-YGR (the “Progressive Action”). 17 Defendants have filed an Administrative Motion to Determine Whether Cases Are Related in the 18 GEICO Action and lodged the Administrative Motion in this action and the Progressive Action. 19 Plaintiffs have indicated they intend to oppose the Administrative Motion. By entering into this 20 stipulation, the Parties do not intend to prejudice or abandon their positions related to the 21 Administrative Motion, and expressly reserve them; 22 The parties hereby enter into the following Stipulation. 23 STIPULATION 24 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the parties, that: 25 i. A stay of all proceedings in this action pending resolution of the Petition for Writ of 26 Mandate filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda in Ison 27 et al. v. Commissioner of the California Department of Insurance, Case No. 22CV008022, 1 is proper as it will promote the interests of justice and judicial economy and efficiency and 2 will not prejudice the parties. 3 ii. All proceedings in this action are stayed pending resolution of the Petition. 4 iii. Entry of this Stipulation to Stay All Proceedings Pending Outcome of Related Superior 5 Court Action is without prejudice to any party subsequently seeking leave to vacate or to 6 modify the stay, and Defendants retain all rights to oppose the claims in this case, including 7 but not limited to their right to seek dismissal of the claims, in whole or in part. 8 Dated: June 1, 2022 FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 9 By: s/ Wyatt A. Lison 10 Wyatt A. Lison Attorney for Plaintiffs CARLA 11 JACKSON, DENISE GRIFFIN, and JAMIE PETTIT and the Proposed Class 12 13 Dated: June 1, 2022 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 14 By: s/ Margaret E. Dayton Margaret E. Dayton 15 Attorney for Defendants ALLSTATE

NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY

16 COMPANY and ESURANCE 17 PROPERTY AND CASUALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY

18

ATTESTATION

19 I, Wyatt A. Lison, am the ECF User whose ID and password is being used to file this Stipulation 20 to Stay All Proceedings Pending Outcome of Related Superior Court Action and [Proposed] Order. I 21 attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from all counsel whose 22 signatures appear. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 23 24 s/ Wyatt A. Lison Wyatt A. Lison 25 26 27 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. All proceedings in this action are 3 stayed pending the resolution of the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed with Superior Court of the State 4 of California, County of Alameda in Ison et al. v. Commissioner of the California Department of 5 Insurance, Case No. 22CV008022. Entry of this stay is without prejudice to any party subsequently 6 seeking leave to vacate or modify the stay. 7 8 Dated: _J_u_n_e_ 1_0_,_ 2_0_2_2______

HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR

9 UNITED STATES DISCTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27