The Raisin Bargaining Association et al v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 14

ORDER On Defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance's 7 Motion To Dismiss (FRCP 12(b)(6)), signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 6/2/2010. (Gaumnitz, R)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

THE RAISIN BARGAINING ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit California cooperative association; GLEN S. GOTO, an individual; MONTE SCHUTZ, an individual, Plaintiffs, vs. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; and Does 1-30, inclusive,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 1:10-CV-00370-OWW-DLB ORDER ON DEFENDANT HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE'S MOTION TO DISMISS (FRCP 12(b)(6))

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Order

Defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (FRCP 12(b)(6)) came on regularly for hearing in the above-entitled Court before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger on May 17, 2010. Plaintiffs The Raisin

Bargaining Association, Glen S. Goto, and Monte Schutz were represented by Wiley R. Driskill of the Law Firm of Campagne & Campagne. Defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company was represented by Ann Johnson of Berger Kahn. The Court, having considered the pleadings, evidence, documents, papers and memoranda of points and authorities submitted by the parties, the matter having been argued and submitted, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT Defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and claim for declaratory relief

are dismissed, without prejudice; 2. Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and

fair dealing is dismissed, with prejudice; 3. Plaintiffs' claim for tortuous breacho f the implied covenant of good

faith and faith dealing is dismissed, without prejudice; 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. prejudice; 10. Plaintiffs' claim for reformation is dismissed, with prejudice; and Plaintiffs' claim for the waiver/estoppel dismissed, with prejudice; Plaintiffs' quasi-contract claim is dismissed, without prejudice Plaintiffs' quantum meruit claim is dismissed, without prejudice Plaintiffs' claim for negligence is dismissed, with prejudice; Plaintiffs' statutory claims are dismissed, with prejudice; Plaintiffs' claim for breach of oral contract is dismissed without

Page 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
DEAC_Signature-END:

11.

Plaintiffs shall file an Amended Complaint within fifteen (15) days of

the filing of this order. Defendant shall file a response to the Amended Complaint within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:

June 2, 2010

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
AMPAGN E, CAMPAGNE & LERNER

emm0d64h

A PROF. CORP. AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER 1685 NORTH HELM AVENUE FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93727 TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]

Order

Page 2

C