The Burlington Insurance Company v. Minadora Holdings LLC et al

Filing 69

JUDGMENT by Judge John A. Kronstadt. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff The Burlington Insurance Company(Burlington) and against defendants Minadora Holdings, LLC (Minadora);Jarvis Enterprises, Inc. dba Orange Precision Metal Fabrication (OP); West CoastStorm, Inc. (West Coast) and Marvin W. Durment (Durment). 1. There is and was no coverage for the counterclaims asserted byDurment against OP, Minadora and/or West Coast in Jarvis v. Durment, No. RIC527161 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside(the Underlying Action) under any insurance policy issued by Burlington;2. Burlington had no duty to defend OP, Minadora or West Coast in theUnderlying Action;3. B urlington has no duty to pay Durment or to indemnify OP, Minadoraor West Coast for any portion of the settlement of the Underlying Action;4. An award of costs may be recovered, in an amount to be determined,following the filing of the appropriate application and the consideration of anyobjections.It is hereby declared and adjudged that: (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (bp)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

THE BURLINGTON INSURANCE
COMPANY,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:13-cv-05349-JAK-E
JUDGMENT

vs.
MINADORA HOLDINGS, LLC;
JARVIS ENTERPRISES, INC. dba
ORANGE PRECISION METAL
FABRICATION; WEST COAST
STORM, INC; and MARVIN W.
DURMENT,

JS-6

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff The Burlington Insurance Company
(“Burlington”) and against defendants Minadora Holdings, LLC (“Minadora”);
Jarvis Enterprises, Inc. dba Orange Precision Metal Fabrication (“OP”); West Coast
Storm, Inc. (“West Coast”) and Marvin W. Durment (“Durment”).
It is hereby declared and adjudged that:

26
27
28

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1

1.

There is and was no coverage for the counterclaims asserted by

2

Durment against OP, Minadora and/or West Coast in Jarvis v. Durment, No. RIC

3

527161 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside

4

(the “Underlying Action”) under any insurance policy issued by Burlington;

5
6
7
8
9

2.

Burlington had no duty to defend OP, Minadora or West Coast in the

Underlying Action;
3.

Burlington has no duty to pay Durment or to indemnify OP, Minadora

or West Coast for any portion of the settlement of the Underlying Action;
4.

An award of costs may be recovered, in an amount to be determined,

10

following the filing of the appropriate application and the consideration of any

11

objections.

12
13
14

Dated: April 8, 2015
___________________________
John A. Kronstadt
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

4810-5604-2018, v. 1

23
24
25
26
27
28
-2JUDGMENT