Filing 57

ORDER granting 54 Motion for Default Judgment. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/18/2017. (JRB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. ASHUTOSH CORPORATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:15-cv-00242-JMS-MJD ORDER Presently pending before the Court is a Motion for Default Judgment filed by Plaintiff Westfield Insurance Company (“Westfield”). [Filing No. 54.] Westfield asks this Court to enter default judgment in its favor and against Defendant Ashutosh Corporation (“Ashutosh”). [Filing No. 54.] The Clerk entered default against Ashutosh pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) on December 14, 2016. [Filing No. 53.] Given the information contained in Westfield’s Motion for Default Judgment, the Court finds a hearing is unnecessary, and now GRANTS the pending Motion and enters DEFAULT JUDGMENT pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) in favor of Westfield and against Ashutosh to the extent that it DECLARES that: • Westfield has no duty under Commercial Package Policy No. CWP 4 671 169 to defend Ashutosh against demands that Ashutosh received from the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”) to investigate and, if necessary, remediate environmental conditions at 1032 N. Main Street, Cloverdale, Indiana, 46120, on which Cloverdale Truck Plaza is located, and listed with IDEM as IDEM U FID #4497 (the “Claim”); and • Westfield has no duty under Commercial Package Policy No. CWP 4 671 169 to indemnify Ashutosh against the Claim. Final judgment shall enter accordingly. Date: 1/18/2017 Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record Distribution via United States Mail to: Ashok Bhargava, President Ashutosh Corporation 13415 East 32nd Ave. Spokane, WA 99216 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?