Allstate Insurance Company v. Steffes et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 18 Defendant John Steffes's Motion to Stay, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 8/30/11. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Illinois Corporation,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

JOHN STEFFES and DOUGLAS C.
DUIN,

12

Defendants.
________________________________

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

2:11-cv-00249-GEB-EFB
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JOHN
STEFFES’S MOTION TO STAY

13
14

Defendant John Steffes (“Steffes”) moves for an order staying

15

this insurance coverage declaratory relief action until after resolution

16

of the related action in Duin v. McCormick, et al, 2:10-cv-02150-GEB-EFB

17

(the

18

(“Allstate”) opposes the motion. Defendant Douglas C. Duin filed a

19

statement of non-opposition in response to the motion. The motion was

20

heard on August 22, 2011.

“underlying

action”).

Plaintiff

Allstate

Insurance

Company

21

Allstate alleges in its declaratory relief complaint: that

22

Steffes tendered defense of the underlying action to Allstate under both

23

an Automobile Policy and Homeowners Policy issued by Allstate; that

24

“Allstate has not disputed the applicability of the Auto Policy to the

25

damages sought in the Underlying Action[;]” and that Allstate owes no

26

duty to defend or indemnify Steffes under the Homeowners Policy because

27

of an exclusion in that policy. (Allstate’s Compl. ¶¶ 8, 9, 13.).

28
1

1

Steffes, as the moving party, “bears the burden of proving [a]

2

stay is warranted.” Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. IMR Contractors Corp.,

3

No. CV 08-5773 JSW, 2009 WL 1010842, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2009)

4

(citing Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997)). Steffes argues this

5

action should be stayed since “Allstate has acknowledged its duty to

6

defend and indemnify [him] pursuant to [the] Automobile Insurance Policy

7

[and

8

declaratory relief matter pending the outcome of the Underlying Action.”

9

(Mot. to Stay 3:12-16.) However, Steffes has not demonstrated that

10

Allstate’s defense of him in the underlying action under the Automobile

11

Policy warrants a stay of this action.

therefore,]

there

exists

no

urgency

to

litigate

the

instant

12

Steffes also argues this action should be stayed since “both

13

the Underlying Action and this action involve the same issues which

14

simply should not proceed concurrently because of the inherent and

15

substantial risk of inconsistent rulings resulting in prejudice to

16

[him].” Id. 3:22-24. This conclusory argument, considered in light of

17

the undisputed facts discussed at the hearing on the motion which do not

18

support the argument, does not justify granting a stay.

19
20

Therefore, the motion is denied.
Dated:

August 30, 2011

21
22
23

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2