The Raisin Bargaining Association et al v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company
ORDER on Defendant's 16 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's 15 First Amended Complaint signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 10/12/2010. ( Filing Deadline: 11/2/2010) (Figueroa, O)
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 1 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'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION
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
Defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint came on for noticed hearing in the above-entitled Court before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger on September 20, 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 & Lerner. Defendant Hartford
Casualty Company was represented by Ted A. Smith of the Berger Kahn Law Firm. From the bench following oral arguments, the Court granted the Defendant's motion and dismissed the quasi contract and breach of oral contract causes of action with leave to amend, dismissed the cumis counsel claim without leave to amend, and ordered stricken the Business & Professions Code and fiduciary duty references. The Court invited Plaintiffs' counsel to notify it and the Defendant if Plaintiffs elected not to amend the quasi contact and breach of oral contract claims. The Court subsequently issued its Memorandum Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss FAC (Doc. 21) on September 27, 2010, consistent with the ruling announced at the hearing, although omitting reference to the matters stricken. That decision directed Plaintiffs to lodge a formal proposed order within 5 days. On September 28, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice Re First Amended Complaint, notifying the Court and Hartford that Plaintiffs would not amend the quasi contract and breach of oral contract claims (Doc. 22). 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: 1. 2. 3. 4. Plaintiffs' quasi-contract claim is DISMISSED, without prejudice; Plaintiffs' oral contact claim is DISMISSED, without prejudice; Plaintiffs' "cumis" claim is DISMISSED, with prejudice; The following matter is stricken from Plaintiffs' First Amended 2
Complaint (Doc 15):
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 and
n pursuing said wrongful course of conduct as alleged herein, Defendant Hartford was engaged in unfair trade practices, prohibited by the Business and Professions Code of the State of California and other laws prohibiting such conduct. (First Amended Complaint at p. 10, line 28 to p. 11, line 2.) 5. The following matter is also stricken from Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint (Doc 15); The above course of conduct was pursued without due regard for, and in reckless and conscience disregard of, the fiduciary obligations owed Plaintiffs pursuant to the agreements and policies of insurance entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendant Hartford. . (First Amended Complaint at p. 11, lines 3-6.)
Pursuant to Plaintiffs' September 28, 2010 Notice Re First Amended
Complaint, Defendant shall file an answer to the remainder of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint within fifteen (15) days of the filing of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 12, 2010
/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?