1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 641 F.3d
  5. 641 F.3d 1126 (2011)
 

U.S. FIDELITY AND GUAR. CO. v. LEE INVESTMENTS LLC

Nos. 08-17753, 09-16962.

641 F.3d 1126 (2011)

UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEE INVESTMENTS LLC, dba The Island, Defendant-Appellant, and American Specialty Insurance Services; American Specialty Risk Management Services LLC, Counter-defendants-Appellees, Aon Risk Services, Inc., Defendant-3rd-party-plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. Lee Investments LLC, dba The Island, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant, v. American Specialty Insurance Services; American Specialty Risk Management Services LLC, Counter-defendants-Appellees, and Richard K. Ehrlich; Rexford Properties, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants-counter-claimants, v. Aon Risk Services, Inc., Third-party-defendant-Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2011.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Daniel O. Jamison and Keith M. White , Dowling, Aaron & Keeler, Inc., Fresno, CA, for appellant/defendant, counter-claimant, third-party plaintiff, and third-party counter-defendant Lee Investments, LLC.

Jeffrey A. Charlston and Bruce T. Smyth , Charlston, Revich & Wollitz, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for appellee/plaintiff United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company and for appellees/counter-defendants American Specialty Insurance Services, Inc., and American Specialty Risk Management Services, LLC.

Margaret L. Parker , Matthew S. Covington , and Stephen Chiari , DLA Piper LLP, San Francisco, CA, for appellee/defendant, third-party plaintiff, counter-defendant Aon Risk Services, Inc.

Before: MARY M. SCHROEDER and SIDNEY R. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and SAMUEL CONTI, Senior District Judge.

OPINION

THOMAS, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal, we consider whether a federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction over an insurance company's diversity action seeking rescission of a workers' compensation policy and, if so, whether it was required to dismiss the case because exclusive jurisdiction was vested by state law in a state workers' compensation agency. We conclude that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and properly denied...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases