Gotham Insurance Company v. Shasta Technologies, LLC et al

Filing 91

STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING DECREE OF FINAL INTERPLEADER AND DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF GOTHAM INSURANCE COMPANY (approving 90 ). Motions terminated: 81 First MOTION to Dismiss Counterclaim of Shasta Technologies, LLC filed by Gotham Insurance Company. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/4/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2015)

1 PLAGER SCHACK LLP
Mark H. Plager (CA Bar No. 192259)
2 [e-mail]
Michael L. Schack (CA Bar No. 128784)
3 [e-mail]
16152 Beach Boulevard, Suite 207
4 Huntington Beach, California 92647
[phone] - Phone
5 [phone] - Fax
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff in Interpleader
Gotham Insurance Company
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
11 GOTHAM INSURANCE COMPANY, )
)
12
Plaintiff in Interpleader,
)
)
13
v.
)
)
14 SHASTA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
)
INSTACARE CORP., and
)
15 PHARMATECH SOLUTIONS, INC.
)
)
16
Defendants in Interpleader.
)
)
17
)
)
18 AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS )
AND CROSS-CLAIMS.
)
19
)

CASE No. 5:13-CV-03810 BLF
STIPULATION AND ORDER
GRANTING DECREE OF FINAL
INTERPLEADER AND DISMISSAL
OF PLAINTIFF GOTHAM
INSURANCE COMPANY

20
21

WHEREAS, the Parties in the above-referenced matter have entered into a

22 Settlement Agreement whereby, as between Plaintiff Gotham Insurance Company
23 (“Gotham”), on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the Defendants SHASTA
24 TECHNOLOGIES, LLC (hereinafter "Shasta"), PHARMATECH SOLUTIONS, INC.
25 (hereinafter "Pharmatech"), DECISION DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,fka INSTACARE CORP.
26 (hereinafter "Decision Diagnostics"), CALVIN KNICKERBOCKER, JR. (hereinafter
27 "Knickerbocker Jr.") and CALVIN KNICKERBOCKER, III (hereinafter "Knickerbocker
28 III") (hereinafter Shasta, Pharmatech, Instacare, Knickerbocker Jr. and Knickerbocker III
STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING DECREE OF FINAL INTERPLEADER AND
DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF GOTHAM INSURANCE COMPANY
1

1 shall be collectively referred to as "Defendants"), have agreed to settle the interpleader
2 claims and allow for dismissal of Gotham; and
3

Whereas, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants shall

4 retain and maintain their claims against each other, as well as their claims to the
5 interplead funds currently on deposit with the Clerk of the Court, which claims shall be
6 litigated in this matter; and
7

Whereas, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, no claims shall be

8 retained or continue to be maintained against Gotham, and the Counter-claims of Shasta
9 against Gotham are to be dismissed with prejudice; and
10

Whereas, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Gotham will dismiss

11 all of its causes of action against Shasta, Knickerbocker Jr. and Knickerbocker III, except
12 for the interpleader cause of action;
13

WHEREAS, in furtherance of such settlement the following order is requested to

14 be entered by all parties;
15

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

16

1.

The Court shall enter a final decree of interpleader;

17

2.

Plaintiff Gotham Insurance Company shall be dismissed from this case;

18

3.

All of the claims of Defendant and Counter-claimant Shasta Technologies, LLC

19

contained in its Answer and Counter-claim against Plaintiff and Counter-defendant

20

Gotham Insurance Company shall be dismissed with prejudice;

21

4.

From Plaintiff Gotham Insurance Company’s First Amended Complaint, the Third

22

Cause of Action for Breach of Written Settlement, Fourth Cause of Action for

23

Promise Made with No Intention to Perform, and Fifth Cause of Action for Fraud,

24

against Defendants Shasta Technologies, LLC, Calvin Knickerbocker, Jr. and

25

Calvin Knickerbocker III, respectively, shall be dismissed with prejudice;

26

5.

Defendants shall be permanently enjoined from instituting or prosecuting any

27

proceedings against Plaintiff in any way relating to the insurance policy or its

28

proceeds. However, should Plaintiff institute any action against Defendants,
STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING DECREE OF FINAL INTERPLEADER AND
DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF GOTHAM INSURANCE COMPANY
2

1

Defendants reserve the right to assert all defenses, including affirmative defenses,

2

and, Defendants reserve the right to file and prosecute any cross-claim in such

3

action by Plaintiff, whether compulsory or permissive, provided that the facts and

4

events giving rise to any such cross-claim must have occurred after the date on

5

which this order was entered. It being understood that this injunction precludes any

6

claims existing, arising or accruing prior to the date of this order, and that

7

Defendants are permanently barred from raising any claims that were, or could

8

have been asserted prior to the date of this order;

9

6.

The Defendants shall be deemed to have each filed a claim to the Policy Proceeds

10

on deposit with the Court. Proceeds that are deemed unclaimed shall be deposited

11

in the United States Treasury in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2042;

12

7.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Gotham waives any claim

13

for attorney’s fees and costs against the Defendants to the extent such claim

14

arises out of or relates to this interpleader action only, and Defendants waive

15

any claims to attorney’s fees and costs against Gotham, while the

16

Defendants reserve their claims for attorney’s fees and costs as against each

17

other, and Gotham rights are reserved as set forth in the Settlement

18

Agreement;

19

8.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the case for purposes of

20

determination of claims between the Defendants, and for purposes of

21

enforcing the Settlement Agreement.

22
23

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

24
25 Dated: January 2, 2014

PLAGER SCHACK LLP

26

By: /s/Mark H. Plager/
Mark H. Plager
Attorneys for Plaintiff Gotham Insurance
Company

27
28

STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING DECREE OF FINAL INTERPLEADER AND
DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF GOTHAM INSURANCE COMPANY
3

1 Dated: January 6, 2015
2

BAER & TROFF, LLP
By:

4

/s/ Eric Troff/
Eric Troff
Attorneys for Defendants and Crossclaimants Instacare Corp. and PharmaTech
Solutions, Inc.

5 Dated: January 6, 2015

OGLOZA FORTNEY LLP

3

6
7
8
9

By:

/s/ David C. Fortney/
David C. Fortney
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Shasta Technologies, LLC, and
Defendants Calvin A. Knickerbocker, Jr.
and Calvin A. Knickerbocker III

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING DECREE OF FINAL INTERPLEADER AND
DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF GOTHAM INSURANCE COMPANY
4

1
2

ORDER
The court has before it the parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order for Entry of

3 Final Decree of Interpleader and Dismissal of Plaintiff Gotham Insurance Company
4 (“Plaintiff”)..
5

Plaintiff filed this interpleader action in August 2013.

This was the second of two

6 interpleader cases Plaintiff has filed involving the insurance policy which is the subject matter
7 of this action. The first case (“Gotham I”) was settled and dismissals were filed in that action.
8 Defendants Shasta Technologies, LLC (“Shasta”), Pharmatech Solutions, Inc. (“Pharmatech”),
9 and Instacare, Inc. (“Instacare” aka Decision Diagnostics) each filed answers to the original
10 complaint in this case.

Shasta also filed a Counter-claim against Plaintiff alleging breach of

11 contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
12

Pursuant to stipulation, Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint containing the

13 following causes of action:
14

1.

Interpleader Against Defendants Shasta, Pharmatech, and Instacare;

15

2.

Declaratory Relief Against Defendants Shasta, Pharmatech, and Instacare;

16

3.

Breach of the Written Settlement Agreement in Gotham I Against Defendant

17
18

Shasta Only;
4.

19

Promise Made with No Intention Performing Against Defendants Shasta,
Knickerbocker Jr. and Knickerbocker III; and

20

5.

21

All Defendants answered the First Amended Complaint. Defendant Shasta, concurrent

Fraud Against Defendants Shasta, Knickerbocker Jr. and Knickerbocker III.

22 with its Answer to the First Amended Complaint, asserted Counter-claims against Plaintiff
23 alleging breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff
24 has filed a motion to dismiss Shasta’s counter-claims which is scheduled for hearing on February
25 12, 2015.
26

Defendants and Cross-claimants Pharmatech and Decision Diagnostics fka Instacare filed

27 a Cross-claim against Defendants and Cross-defendants Shasta, Kinckerbocker Jr. and
28 Knickerbocker III alleging:
STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING DECREE OF FINAL INTERPLEADER AND
DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF GOTHAM INSURANCE COMPANY
5

1

1.

Breach of the Written Settlement Agreement in Gotham I; and

2

2.

Promise Made with No Intention Performing.

3 Defendants and Cross-defendants Shasta, Knickerbocker Jr. and Knickerbocker III have answered
4 the Cross-claim of Pharmatech and Decision Diagnostics fka Instacare.
5

The Clerk has not entered any default, and no motion for default judgment has been filed

6 by any party. The parties have now reached a settlement and stipulation as set forth above, as
7 between Gotham, on the one hand, and the Defendants, on the other hand, by which Gotham will
8 be dismissed from the action and the Defendants will continue to assert their claims to the
9 interplead insurance proceeds on deposit with the Clerk of the Court. The parties now ask the
10 Court to enter an order discharging Plaintiff from liability relating to the proceeds, enjoining the
11 Defendants from initiating any action against Plaintiff relating to the policy, and dismissing the
12 claims against Plaintiff, including dismissal of all of Plaintiff’s claims except for the interpleader
13 and declaratory relief claims.
14

The Court acknowledges that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this interpleader

15 action. A plaintiff with a risk of exposure to multiple liability from claimants may use
16 interpleader to join these claimants as defendants and require them to interplead. Interpleader
17 actions typically involve two stages. First, a court will decide whether interpleader is appropriate.
18 If so, then the court may order the plaintiff to deposit the disputed funds, discharge the
19 plaintiff, and direct the claimants to interplead. At the second stage, the court will adjudicate
20 the defendants' competing claims, with the action proceeding as any other civil action. Wells
21 Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The Magellan Owners Ass'n, CV-09-587-PHX-MHM, 2010 WL 46794
22 at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 4, 2010); see also 7 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal
23 Practice and Procedure § 1704 (3d ed.).
24

Here, the Court has already ordered the funds deposited with the Clerk of the Court and

25 Plaintiff has deposited the funds which are the subject of the interpleader action. Plaintiff has
26 submitted evidence that it faces exposure to multiple liability, and has averred that it is a
27 disinterested party with no claim to the insurance proceeds. Each defendant has filed a claim with
28 plaintiff, asserting that they are entitled to the insurance proceeds. Plaintiff cannot distribute the
STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING DECREE OF FINAL INTERPLEADER AND
DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF GOTHAM INSURANCE COMPANY
6

1 proceeds, which are a limited fund, without exposing itself to liability or litigation from the other
2 defendants, all of whom have claimed an interest in the proceeds. Exposure to multiple claims
3 for the proceeds of an insurance policyis one type of action for which interpleader is appropriate.
4 Thus, Plaintiff has established its right to interpleader, and is entitled to be dismissed from this
5 action.
6

Based on the foregoing facts and the stipulation of the parties, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

7

1.

8

The Clerk of the Court shall enter a final decree of interpleader in favor of Plaintiff
Gotham Insurance Company;

9

2.

Plaintiff Gotham Insurance Company is dismissed from this case with prejudice;

10

3.

All of the claims of Defendant and Counter-claimant Shasta Technologies, LLC

11

contained in its Answer and Counter-claim filed on September 15, 2014, against

12

Plaintiff and Counter-defendant Gotham Insurance Company are dismissed with

13

prejudice;

14

4.

From Plaintiff Gotham Insurance Company’s First Amended Complaint, the Third

15

Cause of Action for Breach of Written Settlement, Fourth Cause of Action for

16

Promise Made with No Intention to Perform, and Fifth Cause of Action for Fraud,

17

against Defendants Shasta Technologies, LLC, Calvin Knickerbocker, Jr. and

18

Calvin Knickerbocker III, respectively, are dismissed with prejudice;

19

5.

Defendants, and each of them, are hereby permanently enjoined from instituting or

20

prosecuting any proceedings against Plaintiff in any way relating to the insurance

21

policy or its proceeds which is the subject matter of this action. However, should

22

Plaintiff institute any action against Defendants, Defendants shall retain the right

23

to assert all defenses, including affirmative defenses, and, Defendants shall retain

24

the right to file and prosecute any cross-claim in such action by Plaintiff, whether

25

compulsory or permissive, provided that the facts and events giving rise to any such

26

cross-claim must have occurred after the date on which this order was entered.

27

This injunction precludes any claims existing, arising or accruing prior to the date

28

of this order, and Defendants are permanently barred from raising any claims that
STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING DECREE OF FINAL INTERPLEADER AND
DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF GOTHAM INSURANCE COMPANY
7

1
2

were, or could have been asserted prior to the date of this order;
6.

The Defendants are deemed to have each filed a claim to the Policy Proceeds on

3

deposit with the Court. Proceeds that are deemed unclaimed after resolution of the

4

Defendants’ respective claims shall be deposited in the United States Treasury in

5

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2042;

6

7.

No award of attorney’s fees or costs shall be assessed at this time pursuant to the

7

parties’ Settlement Agreement, with Defendants each reserving the right to assert

8

a claim for attorney’s fees and costs as against each other in conjunction with their

9

respective claims against each other;

10

8.

The Court hereby retains jurisdiction over the case for purposes of

11

determination of claims between the Defendants, and for purposes of

12

enforcing the Settlement Agreement.

13
14 DATED this ____ day of February, 2015.
15

________________________________

Honorable Beth Labson Freeman
United States District Court Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING DECREE OF FINAL INTERPLEADER AND
DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF GOTHAM INSURANCE COMPANY
8