Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company v. Garay et al

Filing 78

ORDER Entering Stipulated Judgment in Favor of Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/9/16. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9
10
11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

12

Plaintiff,

15
16
17

ORDER ENTERING STIPULATED
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS
INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

13
14

Case No. 1:14-CV-00138-AWI-JLT

NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS
INSURANCE COMPANY,

GERARDO ALANN FELIX GARAY;
MARY GARCIA ROJAS; CYNTHIA ANN
ROJAS; CHRISTINA MONTECINO;
GABRIEL ROJAS; ANITA ROJAS,
individually and as Guardian ad Litem for
BRANNON JONAH CLAYTON; and
DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,

18
Defendants.

19
20
21
22

MARY GARCIA ROJAS; CYNTHIA ANN
ROJAS; CHRISTINA MONTECINO;
GABRIEL ROJAS; and ANITA ROJAS,
Counterclaimants,

23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS
INSURANCE COMPANY; PEERLESS
INSURANCE COMPANY; GOLDEN
EAGLE INSURANCE CORPORATION
Counterdefendants.

1

1

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company

2

(“Nationwide”), Defendant Gerardo Alann Felix Garay, and

3

Defendants/Counterclaimants Mary Garcia Rojas, Cynthia Ann Rojas, Christina

4

Montecino, Gabriel Rojas, and Anita Rojas, individually and as Guardian ad Litem

5

for Defendant Brannon Jonah Clayton, have stipulated to entry of judgment in favor

6

of Nationwide.
In light of the Court’s order dated February 22, 2016, denying Defendants’

7
8

motion for partial summary judgment against Nationwide, Doc. 76, the parties to the

9

stipulation have agreed that the Court should enter judgment pursuant to the terms

10

outlined below, subject to the right to appeal.

11

I.

12

Procedural History of the Pleadings.
1.

On January 31, 2014, Plaintiff Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance

13

Company (“Nationwide”) filed a complaint against Mary Garcia Rojas, Cynthia

14

Ann Rojas, Christina Montecino, Gabriel Rojas, and Anita Rojas, individually and

15

as Guardian ad Litem for Brannon Jonah Clayton (all of whom are referred to herein

16

collectively as the “Rojas Defendants”), and Gerardo Alann Felix Garay. Doc. 1.

17

2.

Nationwide’s Complaint sought declaratory relief against the Rojas

18

Defendants and Garay with respect to its rights under two different insurance

19

policies: (A) the “Commercial Auto” insurance policy that Nationwide issued to

20

HFS Enterprises Inc. (“HFS”), policy no. CA 119496A, for the policy period of

21

May 25, 2011 to May 25, 2012; and (B) the “Commercial Umbrella Policy,” policy

22

no. CU 119496A, that Nationwide issued to HFS for the policy period of May 25,

23

2011 to May 25, 2012. Both of these insurance policies are hereinafter referred to

24

as the “Nationwide Policies.”

25

3.

In short, Nationwide’s Complaint sought judicial declarations that

26

Nationwide: (A) did not have a duty under the Nationwide Policies to defend

27

Defendant Gerardo Alann Felix Garay in the civil action that the Rojas Defendants

28

had filed against HFS and Garay in the California Superior Court for the County of
2

1

Kern titled Rojas, et al. v. HFS Enterprises, Inc., Case no. S-1500-CV-275244,

2

alleging motor vehicle and general negligence causes of action against both HFS

3

and Garay (the “Rojas Action”) ; and (B) did not have any obligation under the

4

Nationwide Policies to indemnify or settle the Rojas Action on Gerardo Garay’s

5

behalf.

6

4.

On February 14, 2014, Nationwide filed a First Amended Complaint

7

(“FAC”) Doc. 5. The FAC seeks declaratory relief as to the same issues alleged in

8

the Complaint.

9

5.

10

Doc. 15.

11

6.

On April 3, 2014, the Rojas Defendants answered Nationwide’s FAC.

Also on April 3, 2014, the Rojas Defendants (except for Brannon Jonah

12

Clayton), as assignees of the rights of Defendant Gerardo Garay and as judgment

13

creditors, filed a Counterclaim against Nationwide for breach of contract and breach

14

of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with respect to the Nationwide

15

Policies. Doc. 16. In short, the Rojas Defendants’ Counterclaim alleged that

16

Nationwide breached the Nationwide Policies and the covenant of good faith and

17

fair dealing by failing to settle the Rojas Action within policy limits on Defendant

18

Garay’s behalf, by failing to defend Garay in the Rojas Action, and by failing to

19

indemnify Garay for the judgment against him in the Rojas Action.

20
21

7.

On April 25, 2014, Nationwide answered the Rojas Defendants’

Counterclaim. Doc. 21.
On May 8, 2014, Defendant Gerardo Garay answered Nationwide’s

22

8.

23

FAC. Doc. 22.

24

9.

On July 11, 2014, the Rojas Defendants filed a First Amended Answer

25

to Nationwide’s FAC and a First Amended Counterclaim against Nationwide.

26

Docs. 30, 31.

27
28

10.

On August 1, 2014, Nationwide answered the Rojas Defendants’ First

Amended Counterclaim.
3

1

11.

On March 3, 2015, the Rojas Defendants (except for Brannon Jonah

2

Clayton), as assignees of the rights of Defendant Gerardo Garay and as judgment

3

creditors against Nationwide and Peerless Insurance Company, filed a Second

4

Amended Counterclaim that alleged a new direct cause of action against Peerless

5

Insurance Company as judgment creditors. Doc. 49.

6
7

12.

Second Amended Counterclaim. Doc. 51.

8
9

On March 24, 2015, Nationwide answered the Rojas Defendants’

13.

On April 6, 2015, Peerless Insurance Company answered the Rojas

Defendants’ Second Amended Counterclaim. Doc. 53.

10

14.

On September 10, 2015, the Rojas Defendants (except for Brannon

11

Jonah Clayton) as assignees of the rights of Defendant Gerardo Garay and as

12

judgment creditors against Nationwide, Peerless Insurance Company, and Golden

13

Eagle Insurance Corporation, filed a Third Amended Counterclaim that alleged an

14

additional direct cause of action against Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation as

15

judgment creditors. Doc. 62.

16
17

15.

the Rojas Defendants’ Third Amended Counterclaim. Doc. 65.

18
19

On September 25, 2015, Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation answered

16.

On September 28, 2016, Nationwide answered the Rojas Defendants’

Third Amended Counterclaim. Doc. 66.

20
21

II.

The Rojas Defendants/Counterclaimants’ Motion for Partial Summary

22

Judgment Against Nationwide.

23

17.

On September 24, 2015, the Rojas Defendants/Counterclaimants filed a

24

motion for partial summary judgment against Nationwide. Doc. 64. In short, the

25

motion sought a determination pursuant to the terms of the Nationwide Policies that

26

a 2001 Dodge truck, identified as having California license number 7C93594, was a

27

covered auto owned or borrowed by HFS on October 23, 2011.

28

4

1
2
3

18.

On October 26, 2015, Nationwide filed its Opposition to the Rojas

Defendants/Counterclaimants’ motion for partial summary judgment. Doc. 67.
19.

On November 2, 2015, the Rojas Defendants/Counterclaimants filed

4

their Reply to Nationwide’s Opposition to their motion for partial summary

5

judgment. Doc. 68.

6

20.

On January 26, 2016, upon the Court’s invitation to do so, Peerless

7

Insurance Company and Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation filed a brief in

8

response to the Rojas Defendants/Counterclaimants’ motion for partial summary

9

judgment. Doc. 73.

10

21.

On February 2, 2016, the Rojas Defendants/Counterclaimants filed a

11

response to the briefing that Peerless Insurance Company and Golden Eagle

12

Insurance Corporation filed on January 26, 2016. Doc. 74.

13

22.

On February 2, 2016, Nationwide filed a response to the briefing that

14

Peerless Insurance Company and Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation filed on

15

January 26, 2016. Doc. 75.

16

23.

On February 22, 2016, the Court issued an order denying the Rojas

17

Defendants/Counterclaimants’ motion for partial summary judgment. Doc. 76. The

18

Court’s order held that the evidence that the parties submitted both in support of and

19

in opposition to the motion indicates that HFS was not an owner or borrower of the

20

truck on October 23, 2011.

21

24.

The Court’s order, based on the evidence submitted by the parties, held

22

that after HFS’s sale of the truck to JSA Company (“JSA”) on March 26, 2010, HFS

23

was no longer an owner of the truck. Doc. 76, p. 13. The Court held that “HFS was

24

not, by reason of the Vehicle Code, owner of the Truck such that it was liable for

25

operation of the vehicle by any other person. See Veh. Code § 5602.” Doc. 76, p. 13.

26
27

25.

The Court also rejected Defendants’ contention that HFS was an owner

of the truck after the sale to JSA. The Court held that “JSA’s transfer of possession

28

5

1

to HFS for purposes of selling the Truck on behalf of JSA does not impact the

2

ownership of the Truck.” Id.

3
4
5

III.

Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in Nationwide’s Favor.
26.

The parties have stipulated that the Court’s findings in the February 22,

6

2016 order that HFS’s ownership was terminated upon the bona fide sale of the

7

truck to JSA and HFS’s compliance with Vehicle Code § 5602, and that HFS’s

8

subsequent possession and efforts to sell the truck did not impact the ownership of

9

the truck, are determinative that there was no coverage under the Nationwide

10
11

policies.
27.

In light of the Court’s denial of the Rojas

12

Defendants/Counterclaimants’ motion for partial summary judgment, Nationwide,

13

the Rojas Defendants/Counterclaimants, and Defendant Gerardo Garay, have met

14

and conferred and agreed that if Nationwide were to file a motion for summary

15

judgment pursuant to FRCP Rule 56, the same evidence which was before the Court

16

on the Defendants/Counterclaimants motion for partial summary judgment would be

17

introduced in support of the motion and in opposition to such a motion. The Court’s

18

February 22, 2016 order finding that HFS was not the owner of the truck after

19

March 26, 2010 would negate coverage and entitle Nationwide to summary

20

judgment.

21

28.

22
23

The Rojas Defendants/Counterclaimants, Defendant Gerardo Garay,

and Nationwide have all agreed that judgment should be entered as follows:
a.

In favor of Nationwide and against all of the Rojas Defendants

24

and Gerardo Garay with respect to each of Nationwide’s claims

25

for declaratory relief set forth in Nationwide’s FAC; and

26

b.

In favor of Nationwide, only, and against all Counterclaimants

27

with respect to each of the claims as alleged against Nationwide

28

in the Third Amended Counterclaim.
6

1

c.

Counterclaimants continue to assert their claims against

2

Counterdefendants Peerless Insurance Company and Golden

3

Eagle Insurance Corporation.

4

29.

Nationwide, Gerardo Garay, and the Rojas Defendants have all

5

stipulated that final judgment may now be entered in favor of Nationwide based on

6

the evidence submitted to the Court by the parties in support of and in opposition to

7

the Rojas Defendants/Counterclaimants’ motion for partial summary judgment,

8

subject to the right to appeal which is expressly reserved.

9

30.

Nationwide, Gerardo Garay, and the Rojas Defendants have further

10

stipulated that each party shall be responsible only for their own respective costs

11

incurred in this lawsuit.

12

31.

Nationwide and the Rojas Defendants have stipulated that subject to the

13

right of appeal, the Rojas Defendants shall take nothing from Nationwide with

14

respect to their Third Amended Counterclaim against Nationwide.

15

32.

Each party to this agreement has expressly reserved its right to appeal

16

and/or cross-appeal this judgment and/or the Court’s ruling of February 22, 2016.

17

///

18

///

19

///

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7

1
2
3

ORDER
Based on the forgoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Nationwide

4

Agribusiness Insurance Company and against all of the Rojas Defendants

5

and Defendant Gerardo Garay with respect to each of Nationwide’s claims

6

for declaratory relief set forth in Nationwide’s First Amended Complaint;

7

and

8
9
10
11

2. Judgement is entered in favor of Nationwide only and against all
Counterclaimants with respect to each of the claims as alleged against
Nationwide in the Third Amended Counterclaim.
The Rojas Defendants/Counterclaimants shall take nothing from Nationwide

12

with respect to their Third Amended Counterclaim. Each party shall be responsible

13

only for their own respective costs incurred in this lawsuit.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 9, 2016
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8