Paul Evert's RV Country, Inc. et al v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 6/14/2016 DENYING 32 Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay and DENYING 48 Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

PAUL EVERT’S RV COUNTRY,
INC.; PAUL EVERT; and CHARLES
CURTIS,
Plaintiffs,

CIV. NO. 1:15-00124 WBS SKO
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO STAY AND
DISMISS

v.
UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES
1-25, inclusive,
Defendant.

19
20

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

21
22

----oo0oo----

23
24

Plaintiffs Paul Evert’s RV Country, Inc., Paul Evert,

25

and Charles Curtis initiated this suit against defendant

26

Universal Underwriters Insurance Company alleging a breach of its

27

duty to defend and indemnify.

28

plaintiffs’ motion to stay the case pending resolution of the

Presently before the court is

1

1

underlying third-party action in state court, (Docket No. 32),

2

and motion to dismiss defendant’s declaratory relief

3

counterclaims for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal

4

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), (Docket No. 48).

5

I.

Procedural and Factual Background

6

Defendant issued a property and liability insurance

7

policy to plaintiffs providing liability indemnity for covered

8

claims and a duty to defend actions for covered claims.

9

¶¶ 7-9 (Docket No. 1-1).)

(Compl.

Pursuant to this policy, defendant

10

agreed to provide plaintiffs with a defense, subject to a

11

reservation of rights, in an underlying state court case brought

12

against them by competitors Fresno RV, Inc. and Clovis RV, Inc.,

13

alleging trade libel, defamation, slander per se, false light,

14

intentional interference with prospective economic relations,

15

negligent interference with prospective economic relations,

16

intentional inference with contract, unfair competition, and

17

negligent hiring.

18

Clovis RV, Inc. v. Paul Evert’s RV Country, Inc., Paul Evert,

19

Charles E. Curtis, Jr., Jim Crowell, & Aaron Lyon, No. 11-CE-GG-

20

01433 (Fresno Cnty. Superior Ct.).1

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

(Id. ¶¶ 10-15); see also Fresno RV, Inc. &

The reservation of rights

The court takes judicial notice of the existence of the
complaint filed by Fresno RV, Inc. and Clovis RV, Inc., the
tentative statement of decision, the statement of decision, the
notice of appeal, the answer to the complaint, and the motion for
new trial filed in Fresno County Superior Court in the underlying
case of Fresno RV, Inc. & Clovis RV, Inc. v. Paul Evert’s RV
Country, Inc., Paul Evert, Charles E. Curtis, Jr., Jim Crowell, &
Aaron Lyon, No. 11-CE-GG-01433 (Fresno Cnty. Superior Ct.),
because they are matters of public record whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned and the Superior Court proceedings have
a direct relation to the matters at issue in the present action.
See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) (“The court may judicially notice a fact
that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: . . . (2)
2

1

letter stated that there was no coverage for intentionally or

2

inherently harmful acts or punitive damages under California law.

3

(Def.’s Am. Countercl. ¶ 14 (Docket No. 40).)

4

insurance policy exclusion for “dishonest, fraudulent, or

5

criminal” acts committed “with intent to cause harm.”

6

It also cited the

(Id.)

The Superior Court found plaintiffs jointly and

7

severally liable for defamation in the underlying action and

8

awarded compensatory damages of $500,000 against Paul Evert’s RV

9

Country, Inc. and also found that plaintiffs acted with the

10

requisite fraud, oppression, and malice to warrant an award of

11

punitive damages of $3,000,000 against Paul Evert, $1,000,000

12

against Charles Curtis, and $80,000 against Aaron Lyon.

13

¶¶ 16-17; Pls.’ Mot. to Stay at 4, Ex.3, Fresno Cnty. Superior

14

Ct. Statement of Decision at 28 (Docket No. 32-1).)

15

judgment is now on appeal.

16

(Id.

This

Plaintiffs contend that defendant refused to properly

17

defend them in the underlying state court action by failing to

18

provide independent defense counsel, failing to keep plaintiffs

19

advised of all settlement demands, and allowing a reasonable

20

settlement offer to expire.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs allege two causes of

can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”); United States ex
rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971
F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating that a federal court may
take judicial notice of records and “proceedings in other courts,
both within and without the federal judicial system, if those
proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue”); Lee v.
City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir. 2001) (“On a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, when a court takes judicial
notice of another court’s opinion, it may do so ‘not for the
truth of the facts recited therein, but for the existence of the
opinion, which is not subject to reasonable dispute over its
authenticity.’” (citation omitted)).
3

1

action: (1) breach of written contract, and (2) breach of the

2

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

3

Removal Ex. A, Pls.’ Compl. (“Compl.”) (Docket No. 1-1).)

(Notice of

4

Defendant filed three counterclaims for declaratory

5

relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-

6

2201: (1) defendant will have no obligation to indemnify

7

plaintiffs for any award of punitive damages in the underlying

8

action; (2) defendant will have no obligation to indemnify

9

plaintiffs for the Superior Court’s award of compensatory

10

damages; and (3) defendant’s funding of the defense of plaintiffs

11

in the underlying action satisfies its duty to defend under the

12

insurance policy.

13

II.

14

(Def.’s Am. Countercl. at 5.)

Motion to Stay
Plaintiffs seek a stay of both defendant’s declaratory

15

relief counterclaims regarding its duty to defend and indemnify

16

as well as a stay of plaintiffs’ breach of contract and good

17

faith and fair dealing claims pending resolution of the

18

underlying third-party action in state court.

19

“inherent authority to stay the entire action before it if a stay

20

is ‘efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the

21

parties.’”

22

Funds, Civ. No. 1:12-126 WBS, 2012 WL 5273229, at *1 (E.D. Cal.

23

Oct. 22, 2012) (citation omitted); see also Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

24

v. Trans Cal Assocs., Civ. No. 2:10-1957 WBS KJN, 2011 WL

25

6329959, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2011).

26

The court has

Trs. of the Eighth Dist. Elec. Pension & Benefits

It would not be the fairest course of action to the

27

parties for the court to stay the present action.

28

Superior Court judgment is affirmed on appeal, the third-party
4

If the

1

plaintiffs in the underlying state action may immediately seek to

2

recover their damages.

3

until the underlying appeal is resolved, defendant could be

4

forced to indemnify the third-party plaintiffs when it has no

5

obligation to do so or defendant could refuse to pay when it in

6

fact has an obligation to indemnify, forcing plaintiffs to bear

7

the costs.

8

present action to resolve the question of indemnity prior to the

9

resolution of the underlying state action.

If the court stays the action and waits

It is therefore important for both parties in the

Furthermore, there is

10

little risk of inconsistent factual determinations or prejudice

11

to plaintiffs in the underlying state action because defendant

12

does not seek to establish adverse facts on the issue of fault

13

but rather to assess the legal ramifications of the Superior

14

Court’s finding of facts.

15

stay will be denied.

16

III. Motion to Dismiss

17

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for a

Under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, “[i]n a

18

case of actual controversy . . . any court of the United States .

19

. . may declare the rights and other legal relations of any

20

interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further

21

relief is or could be sought.”

22

both parties cite California case authority, when a claim for

23

declaratory relief is in federal court based on diversity of

24

citizenship “the question whether to exercise federal

25

jurisdiction to resolve the controversy [becomes] a procedural

26

question of federal law” while substantive issues in the

27

declaratory judgment action are resolved under state law.

28

Eagles Ins. Co. v. Travelers Cos., 103 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir.

28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).

5

Even though

Golden

1

1997), overruled on other grounds by Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v.

2

Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Brosious v. JP

3

Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 15-00047 KJM DAD, 2015 WL

4

3486953, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2015) (“The propriety of

5

granting declaratory relief in federal court is a procedural

6

question governed by federal law, even when the court’s

7

jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.”).

8

and federal standards for declaratory judgment are, however,

9

generally equivalent.

The state

Compare 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), with Cal.

10

Civ. Proc. Code § 1060 (“Any person interested under a written

11

instrument . . . or under a contract . . . may, in cases of

12

actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the

13

respective parties, bring an original action . . . for a

14

declaration of his or her rights and duties. . . . [T]he court

15

may make a binding declaration of these rights or duties, whether

16

or not further relief is or could be claimed at the time.”).

17

To determine whether a declaratory judgment is

18

appropriate, the court must (1) “inquire whether there is an

19

actual case or controversy within its jurisdiction” and (2)

20

“decide whether to exercise its jurisdiction by analyzing the

21

factors set out in Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S. 491

22

(1942), and its progeny.”

23

394 F.3d 665, 669 (9th Cir. 2005).

24

relevant factors include avoiding duplicative litigation,

25

avoiding needless determination of state law issues, and

26

considering whether the declaratory action will serve a useful

27

purpose in clarifying the legal relations at issue.

28

The court’s decision of whether to exercise jurisdiction “is

Principal Life Ins. Co. v. Robinson,

6

Under Brillhart, potentially

Id. at 672.

1

discretionary, for the Declaratory Judgment Act is ‘deliberately

2

cast in terms of permissive, rather than mandatory, authority.’”

3

Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.

4

1998) (citation omitted).

5

Defendant’s declaratory relief counterclaims are not

6

merely duplicative of plaintiffs’ causes of action, which are

7

grounded in allegations of bad faith and breach of contract

8

rather than the scope of the insurance policy and California

9

coverage exceptions.

Further, as discussed above, defendant’s

10

declaratory relief counterclaims will serve a useful purpose by

11

determining defendant’s duty to indemnify and the scope of its

12

duty to defend before the underlying state court action is

13

resolved and defendant has a possible duty to pay the third-party

14

plaintiffs.

15

defendant’s counterclaims will also be denied.

16

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to stay

17

the present action pending resolution of the underlying state

18

court action (Docket No. 32) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to

20

dismiss (Docket No. 48) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

21

Dated:

June 14, 2016

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7