
    TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KB HOME COASTAL, INC., a California corporation; KB Home North Bay, Inc., a California corporation; KB Home Central Valley, Inc., a California corporation; KB Home Sacramento, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 13-55161.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 8, 2014.
    Filed Nov. 20, 2014.
    Abel Eric Aguilera, Raymond Earl Brown, Esquire, The Aguilera Law Group, Costa Mesa, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Susannah M. Eichele, Esquire, James S. Hultz, Chanmaly Kendie Schlecht, New-meyer & Dillion LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before TALLMAN, BEA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

Defendants-Appellants’ motion to voluntarily dismiss the above-captioned appeal is GRANTED. Costs are awarded to the Plaintiff-Appellee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge,

dissenting from the order granting dismissal.

For the reasons stated in Plaintiff-Ap-pellee’s opposition to the motion to dismiss, I respectfully dissent from the order granting the opposed dismissal. As the parties are engaged in numerous ongoing district court proceedings and, given the nature of the parties’ businesses, will likely face again the issues raised on appeal, the panel should provide a ruling that gives direction to the district courts. In addition, as this appeal has been pending for almost two years, Defendants-Appellants’ motion has been made at the eleventh hour for no other reason than a fear of losing its appeal after having heard the tenor of panel questioning at oral argument. Granting dismissal at this late stage further encourages improper gamesmanship by parties. That Defendants-Appellants would rather withdraw the appeal than face a potential loss reinforces the conclusion that this issue is likely to reappear. One can only conclude that Defendants-Appellants are motivated purely by a fear that the Ninth Circuit will issue controlling authority that will negatively impact future litigation. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     