# Sodexo Management, Inc. v. Old Republic Insurance Company > District Court, S.D. California · March 16, 2022 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10085417 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, S.D. California - **Decided:** March 16, 2022 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10085417 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SODEXO MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.: 20-cv-1517-WQH-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 17 OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE 18 COMPANY, 19 Counter Claimant, 20 v. 21 SODEXO MANAGEMENT, INC., 22 Counter Defendant. 23 HAYES, Judge: 24 The matter before the Court is the Joint Motion to Stay Action, filed by both parties. 25 (ECF No. 75). 26 // 27 // 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 In this action, Plaintiff Sodexo Management, Inc. (“Sodexo”) filed a Complaint 3 against Defendant Old Republic Insurance Company (“Old Republic”). (ECF No. 1-2). 4 Sodexo alleges that pursuant to a contract with Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation 5 (“Cargill”), Sodexo is an additional insured on an insurance policy issued to Cargill by Old 6 Republic. Sodexo alleges that the insurance policy requires Old Republic to defend and 7 indemnify Sodexo in eight actions against Sodexo filed “in connection with an illness 8 allegedly caused by the ingestion of ground beef manufactured by Cargill and prepared by 9 Sodexo in October 2017” (the “Underlying Actions”1). (Id. ¶ 10). Sodexo alleges that Old 10 Republic denied Sodexo’s requests for coverage, breaching the terms of the insurance 11 policy. Sodexo brings the following claims: (1) declaratory relief (duty to defend); (2) 12 declaratory relief (duty to indemnify); (3) breach of contract (failure to defend); (4) breach 13 of contract (failure to indemnify); and (5) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. 14 Sodexo seeks declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees 15 and costs. 16 On March 25, 2021, Old Republic filed an Answer and Counterclaim against 17 Sodexo. (ECF No. 28). Old Republic alleges that Sodexo is not an insured under the 18 insurance policy issued to Cargill and that the terms of the policy preclude coverage. Old 19 Republic brings one claim against Sodexo for declaratory judgment (duty to defend). Old 20 Republic seeks a declaration “that Old Republic does not now and never had any obligation 21 22 23 24 1 As relevant to the pending motion, the eight Underlying Actions are: Grano v. Sodexo Mgmt. Inc., et al., 25 No. 3:18-cv-1818-LL-BLM (S.D. Cal. 2018); Anderson v. Sodexo Mgmt., Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-1903- LL-BLM (S.D. Cal. 2019); Baker v. Sodexo Mgmt., Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-1904-LL-BLM (S.D. Cal. 26 2019); Browning v. Sodexo Mgmt., Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-1905-LL-BLM (S.D. Cal. 2019); Evers v. Sodexo Mgmt., Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-1907-LL-BLM (S.D. Cal. 2019); Lader v. Sodexo Mgmt., Inc., et 27 al., No. 3:19-cv-1908-LL-BLM (S.D. Cal. 2019); Miller v. Sodexo Mgmt., Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-1909- LL-BLM (S.D. Cal. 2019); Abbott v. Sodexo Mgmt., Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-1917-LL-BLM (S.D. Cal. 28 1 under the Cargill Policy to defend Sodexo in connection with the Underlying Actions.” (Id. 2 at 15). 3 On March 4, 2022, the parties filed the Joint Motion to Stay Action. (ECF No. 75). 4 The parties request that the Court stay this action pending resolution of the Underlying 5 Actions or until such time as the parties jointly move to lift the stay. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 8 to control disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, 9 for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “A trial 10 court may ... find it efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter 11 a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear 12 upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979); 13 see also Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The district 14 court should avoid needless determination of state law issues; it should discourage litigants 15 from filing declaratory actions as a means of forum shopping; and it should avoid 16 duplicative litigation.” (citation omitted)). Under California law, “[t]o eliminate the risk of 17 inconsistent factual determinations that could prejudice the insured, a stay of the 18 declaratory relief action pending resolution of the third party suit is appropriate when the 19 coverage question turns on facts to be litigated in the underlying action.” Montrose, 6 Cal. 20 4th at 301-02 (citations omitted); see also Admiral Ins. Co. v. Shah & Assocs., Inc., No. 21 13-CV-44-WQH-JMA, 2013 WL 3831331, at *7 (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2013) (“Federal courts 22 in California have followed the Montrose rule.” (citations omitted)). 23 The parties contend: 24 [T]his Court should not make a determination as to coverage under the additional insured endorsement here, since doing so may very well require 25 this Court to adjudicate critical and central factual issues that are concurrently 26 being adjudicated in the Underlying Actions. This case must be stayed to avoid adjudicating the same issues multiple times, as well as to avoid 27 potentially inconsistent rulings. It must also be stayed pursuant to Montrose 28 given that Old Republic’s defenses require it to take positions and develop 1 evidence that is potentially harmful to the very entity for which it is providing 7 a defense. 3 ||(ECF No. 75 at 10-11). 4 As identified by the parties, many of the underlying factual and legal issues in this 5 are the same as those at issue in the Underlying Actions. If possible, a “district court 6 ||... should avoid duplicative litigation.” Dizol, 133 F.3d at 1225 (citation omitted). Without 7 stay, there is a “risk of inconsistent factual determinations that could prejudice the 8 |{insured.” Montrose, 6 Cal. 4th at 301. The Court concludes that the relevant factors weigh 9 favor of staying this action pending resolution of the Underlying Actions. 10 Hr. CONCLUSION 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Stay Action (ECF No. 75) is 12 || granted. This action is stayed until further order of the Court. The Clerk of the Court shall 13 ||administratively close this action. The pending Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s 14 || Discovery Order (ECF No. 76) is denied without prejudice to refile after the stay is lifted. 15 || Either party may file a motion requesting the Court to lift the stay and reopen this action 16 |} when the Underlying Actions are resolved or for other good cause. For so long as this 17 action remains stayed, the parties shall file a status report as to the progress of the 18 || Underlying Actions no later than September 16, 2022, and every 180 days thereafter. 19 20 || Dated: March 15, 2022 itt Z. A a 21 Hon. William Q. Hayes United States District Court 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10085417. Public record. Not legal advice.