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)

Download PDF
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

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?