Mackay v. Superior Court (21st Century Insurance Co.)

Full title: AMBER MACKAY et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OFLOS ANGELES…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division

Date published: Oct 22, 2010

B220469, B223772 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2010)

Opinion

AMBER MACKAY et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OFLOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent 21st Century Insurance Company, Real Party in Interest. 21ST CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; AMBER MACKAY et al., Real Parties in Interest. B220469, B223772 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Third Division October 22, 2010

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BC297438, BC266219, John S. Wiley, Jr., Judge, Anthony J. Mohr, Judge.

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

THE COURT:

This is a second order of modification.

On page 35, at the end of line 8, please add a footnote:

This court has been advised by written communications from the parties, each dated September 29, 2010, that a tentative “settlement” of this class action has been negotiated. We have nonetheless determined to exercise our discretion to retain jurisdiction and file our decision in this matter. There are two reasons for doing so. First, as both parties have recognized, the negotiated settlement is only tentative and subject to further court proceedings as well as potential objections by class members. In addition, such settlement was negotiated after this matter had been submitted for decision. (Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Avant! Corp. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 215, 218, fn. 2; Castro v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1014, fn. 3.) Second, the issues presented by these consolidated writ petitions and addressed in this opinion are of major importance to both insurers and policy holders in California and are clearly of continuing public interest and are likely to recur. (See People v. Eubanks (1996) 14 Cal.4th 580, 584, fn. 2.)