Evanston Insurance Company v. Winstar Properties, Inc., 2:18-cv-07740-R-KES. (2019)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20191101a49
Visitors: 20
Filed: Oct. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2019
Summary: JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY R. GARY KLAUSNER , District Judge . JUDGMENT Plaintiff Evanston Insurance Company's ("EIC") Motion For Summary Judgment, came on regularly for hearing before this Court on September 30, 2019 the Honorable R. Gary Klausner, District Judge presiding. Appearances of counsel were noted in the record. After considering the moving, opposition and reply papers, arguments of counsel and all other matters presented to the Court, and for go
Summary: JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY R. GARY KLAUSNER , District Judge . JUDGMENT Plaintiff Evanston Insurance Company's ("EIC") Motion For Summary Judgment, came on regularly for hearing before this Court on September 30, 2019 the Honorable R. Gary Klausner, District Judge presiding. Appearances of counsel were noted in the record. After considering the moving, opposition and reply papers, arguments of counsel and all other matters presented to the Court, and for goo..
More
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY
R. GARY KLAUSNER, District Judge.
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Evanston Insurance Company's ("EIC") Motion For Summary Judgment, came on regularly for hearing before this Court on September 30, 2019 the Honorable R. Gary Klausner, District Judge presiding. Appearances of counsel were noted in the record.
After considering the moving, opposition and reply papers, arguments of counsel and all other matters presented to the Court, and for good cause appearing, this Court GRANTS EIC's motion in its entirety and finds that Judgment should be entered in favor of EIC and against Defendants Winstar Properties, Inc. ("Winstar") and Manhattan Manor, LLC ("Manhattan") on EIC's First Claim for Declaratory Relief — No Duty to Defend, Second Claim for Declaratory Relief — No Duty to Indemnify, and Third Claim for Reimbursement.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That EIC had no duty to defend Winstar and Manhattan in the lawsuit captioned Adela Hernandez, et al. v. Winstar Properties, Inc, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-04697-ODW-KS (C.D. Cal.) (the "Hernandez action") and that judgment is therefore entered in favor of EIC and against Winstar and Manhattan on EIC's First Claim for Declaratory Relief — No Duty to Defend.
2. That EIC has no duty to indemnify Winstar and Manhattan in the Hernandez action and that judgment is therefore entered in favor of EIC and against Winstar and Manhattan on EIC's Second Claim for Declaratory Relief — No Duty to Indemnify.
3. That EIC is entitled to recover the amounts it paid in connection with the defense of the Hernandez action and that judgment is therefore entered in favor of EIC and against Winstar and Manhattan in the amount of $83,227.52 on EIC's Third Claim for Reimbursement.
4. That EIC is entitled to pre-judgment interest; and
5. That EIC is awarded its costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
