Maryland Casualty Company v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 90

JUDGMENT dated *02/29/212* in favor of Maryland Casualty Company against Defendants pursuant to order 01/11/2012, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 02/29/2012. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a )
Maryland corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
OLGA GONZALEZ, an individual,
)
HECTOR GONZALEZ, and individual, )
OLGA AND HECTOR GONZALEZ dba )
G & CO, G & COMPANY, INC., a
)
California corporation, GABRIEL
)
PASCUAL, an individual, DANIEL
)
REYNA, and individual, KYLE
)
KOETSIER, an individual, EMMERSON )
VALDIVIESO, an individual,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-2242 AWI JLT
JUDGMENT

19
20
21

On April 25, 2011, Plaintiff Maryland Casualty Insurance Company filed a Motion for

22

Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication ("Motion for Summary

23

Judgment") against all of the Defendants: Daniel Reyna, Kyle Koetsier, Emmerson Valdivieso,

24

Olga Gonzalez, Hector Gonzalez, Olga and Hector Gonzalez dba G & Co., G & Company, Inc.,

25

and Gabriel Pascual (collectively "Defendants"). Defendants Olga Gonzalez, Hector Gonzalez,

26

Olga and Hector Gonzalez dba G & Co., G & Company, Inc., and Gabriel Pascual previously

27

have defaulted and their defaults have been entered by the Clerk.

28

By its Order dated October 11, 2011, this Court granted in part and denied the remainder
1

1

of the Motion for Summary Judgment, following the Court's August 19, 2011 Memorandum

2

Decision thereon. Specifically, by its Order dated October 11, 2011, the Court granted summary

3

judgment in favor of Maryland Casualty and against the Defendants, solely on the issue that the

4

Defendant G & Company, Inc., a corporation, is not an insured under Maryland Casualty's Policy

5

No. PAS 01613704 issued to "Olga and Hector Gonzalez DBA: G & Co.," and therefore

6

Maryland Casualty has no duty to defend or indemnify G & Company, Inc. in the action entitled

7

Reyna, et al. v. County of Fresno, et al., Case No. 10 CECG 01368 in the Superior Court of

8

Fresno, California (the "Underlying Action"). Summary judgment was denied as to Maryland

9

Casualty's contention that it had no duty to defend or indemnify any insureds in the Underlying

10

Action.
Thereafter, Maryland Casualty moved for reconsideration of the denial of that portion of

11
12

its Motion for Summary Judgment seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or

13

indemnify any of the insureds in the Underlying Action. Upon such reconsideration, and based

14

upon its consideration of all the parties' arguments and papers filed in support of and in

15

opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment and in support of and in opposition to Plaintiff

16

Maryland Casualty Insurance Company's Motion for Reconsideration, the Court hereby grants

17

the Motion for Summary Judgment.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

18
19

1.

G & Company, Inc., is not insured under Maryland Casualty Company's Policy No. PAS

20

01613704 issued to "Olga and Hector Gonzalez DBA: G& Co.";

21

2.

22

issued to "Olga and Hector Gonzalez DBA: G & Co." to defend or to indemnify any insureds in

23

the action entitled Reyna, et al. v. County of Fresno, et al., Case No. 10 CECG 01368 in the

24

Superior Court of Fresno, California.

Maryland Casualty Company owed and owes no duty under its Policy No. PAS 01613704

25

By reason of the above, judgment is hereby entered in favor of Maryland Casualty

26

Company and against all the Defendants as to all of the claims for relief pleaded in its Complaint.

27

Maryland Casualty, as the prevailing party, shall recover from Defendants its taxable

28

costs of suit in this matter as taxed by the Clerk under the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil
2

1

Procedure. The sum awarded by this Court as costs shall bear postjudgment interest at the

2

current U.S. Treasury Constant Maturity rate, from the date this judgment is entered until it is

3

paid.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated:
0m8i78

February 29, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3