Cipollina v. State Farm General Insurance Company

Filing 12

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS by Hon. William Alsup granting 3 Motion to Dismiss.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ALBERTO CIPOLLINA,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

No. C 12-04248 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO DISMISS

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY; STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY;
and DOES 1 to 40,
Defendants.

16

/

17
18

Plaintiff Alberto Cipollina sued defendant State Farm General Insurance Company,

19

alleging that defendant did not pay the coverage benefit due under plaintiff’s automobile

20

insurance policy. Plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when he was rear-ended by an

21

underinsured motorist while driving and claims to have incurred medical costs in the amount of

22

$122,538.73.

23

Plaintiff’s insurance policy with defendant provided that defendant would pay damages

24

for bodily injury sustained by plaintiff in any accident with an uninsured or underinsured

25

motorist, up to the amount of $250,000.00. The policy terms required that the limits of any

26

applicable policies must be used up first. The policy provided for arbitration “if there is no

27

agreement between insured and carrier regarding the amount the insured is legally entitled to

28

collect from the underinsured motorist” (Compl. ¶ 3). Plaintiff alleges he settled with the
underinsured motorist, recovering $50,000, which was the policy limit of the motorist.

1

Following an arbitration, the arbitrator found in favor of plaintiff and awarded

2

$100,260,54. After deduction of the settlement and medical pay credits, plaintiff alleges he was

3

“awarded $45,260.54 in new money” (id. ¶ 10). Plaintiff alleges claims for breach of contract,

4

breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California Business and

5

Professions Code Section 17200. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for breach of

6

contract and violation of Section 17200. After plaintiff failed to timely respond to the motion to

7

dismiss, he was ordered to show cause why the motion should not be granted. In response,

8

plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion.

9

Defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract and
unfair competition under Section 17200 is GRANTED. As plaintiff has made no effort to timely

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

respond to the motion, and has not otherwise indicated that amendment would address the

12

problems identified in this order, the two claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

13

The hearing set for October 18, 2012 is hereby VACATED.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: October 4, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2