Allstate Insurance Company v. Pira et al

Filing 107

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING ALLSTATES 104 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Illinois Corporation,

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

ORDER GRANTING
ALLSTATE’S MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT (Docket
No. 104)

Plaintiff,

6
7

No. C 11-3511 CW

v.
ANDREW PIRA, RICHARD PIRA, and
ALEXANDER YIN,
Defendants.
________________________________/
AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
AND CROSS-CLAIMS
________________________________/

On April 19, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff and Counter13
Defendant Allstate Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment
14
in its favor on the second cause of action of its complaint and on
15
all claims made against it by Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff
16
Alexander Yin.

Docket No. 101.

The Court held that Allstate was

17
not responsible for satisfying any portion of the judgment that
18
Yin won against Defendants Richard and Andrew Pira in a state
19
court action.

At that time, the Court directed Allstate to either

20
move for default judgment against the Piras, whose defaults had
21
previously been entered, or dismiss its claims against them and
22
move for entry of judgment.
23
Allstate now moves to dismiss without prejudice its first and
24
third claims, which were asserted against the Piras only, and to
25
enter judgment against the Piras and Yin on Allstate’s second
26
cause of action and against Yin on all of his claims against
27
Allstate.
28

Allstate’s motion was served on Yin through the Court’s

1

electronic notification system and on the Piras by mailing.

2

Docket Nos. 104, 106.

3

or response to the motion has been filed.

4

As of the date of this Order, no opposition

Allstate’s motion to dismiss its first and third causes of

5

action against the Piras is GRANTED.

6

without prejudice.

7

These claims are dismissed

Allstate also seeks default judgment against the Piras on its
second cause of action.

9

a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, a district

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over

11

both the subject matter and the parties.”

12

707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999).

13

over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Allstate is a

14

citizen of Illinois, Defendants are citizens of California and the

15

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

16

personal jurisdiction over the Piras, who reside in this district.

17

The Court has also reviewed the proofs of service and finds that

18

Allstate properly served the Piras with the summons and complaint

19

through substituted service pursuant to California Code of Civil

20

Procedure section 415.20.

21

Civ. Proc. 4(e) (providing that service may be made following

22

state law).

23

“When entry of judgment is sought against

In re Tuli, 172 F.3d

The Court has diversity jurisdiction

The Court also has

See Docket Nos. 7, 12; see also Fed. R.

Having found these conditions satisfied, the Court considers

24

the following factors to determine whether it should grant a

25

default judgment:

26
27
28

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff,
(2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the
sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at
stake in the action[,] (5) the possibility of a dispute
concerning material facts[,] (6) whether the default was
2

1
2

due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy
underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring
decision on the merits.
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation

3
omitted).
4
The Eitel factors support default judgment here.

First, if

5
the motion were denied, Allstate would be left unable to obtain a
6
determination regarding its obligations to indemnify the Piras on
7
the underlying judgment.

Further, Allstate’s complaint properly

8
pleads the claim and the Court has already found the claim to be
9
meritorious.

In doing so, the Court considered the Piras’ sworn

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

testimony from their depositions and found that it did not create
11
a material dispute about the duty of indemnification.

Because the

12
Piras have not answered or otherwise appeared, the possibility
13
that they would be able to raise any other meritorious defense is
14
unknown.

As to the fourth factor, Allstate seeks declaratory

15
judgment and not money damages.

Further, although the declaratory

16
relief sought determines Allstate’s obligations to indemnify the
17
Piras for the $1.25 million judgment against them in the
18
underlying case, even considering this amount as being at stake,
19
it is reasonable because it is tailored to the specific facts of
20
the controversy here and supported by the evidence in the record.
21
Finally, there is no evidence that the Piras’ failure to appear
22
was the result of excusable neglect.

Examining these first six

23
factors, the Court finds that they outweigh the strong policy for
24
a decision on the merits and that default judgment should be
25
entered against the Piras on Allstate’s second cause of action.
26
27
28
3

1

Accordingly, pursuant to this holding and the Court’s prior

2

Orders of June 4, 2012 and April 19, 2013, the Court GRANTS

3

Allstate’s motion for entry of judgment.

4
5

CONCLUSION
Allstate’s motion to dismiss its first and third causes of

6

action and for entry of judgment is GRANTED (Docket No. 104).

7

Allstate’s first and third causes of action against the Piras are

8

dismissed without prejudice.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

The Clerk shall enter judgment as follows:
(1) That Allstate’s first and third causes of action are
dismissed without prejudice;
(2) That judgment is entered for Allstate against Andrew

13

Pira, Richard Pira and Yin on Allstate’s second claim for relief

14

and for Allstate on all of Yin’s claims for relief;

15

(3) That Allstate has no duty to indemnify Andrew Pira or

16

Richard Pira for the judgment entered against them in the action

17

styled Yin v. Pira, Case No. CGC-07-461391 in the Superior Court

18

of California for the City and County of San Francisco; and

19
20
21

(4) That Allstate shall recover its costs of suit herein
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: 6/6/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
4