American Family Connect Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Federal Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 21, 2024
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01351
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMERICAN FAMILY CONNECT Case No.: 3:22-cv-01351-JO-AGS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY 12 INSURANCE COMPANY, 13 ORDER ON REQUESTS FOR Plaintiff, JUDICIAL NOTICE AND PARTIAL 14 v. ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR 15 SUMMARY JUDGMENT FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19

20 On August 21, 2024, the Court issued its partial ruling on the parties’ cross-motions 21 for summary judgment on the record. First, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff, American 22 Family Connect Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Connect”) Request for 23 Judicial Notice. Dkt. 40. Connect requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Docket 24 of the 4th Appellate District for the California Court of Appeals, Division 1, for Case No. 25 D0735538 entitled Deen v. Deen. As Connect only requests notice of the existence of this 26 docket, not the truth of its contents, the Court finds that judicial notice is appropriate under 27 Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Fed. R. Evid. 201; United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 28 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, 1 well as the records of an inferior court in other cases.”). Second, for the reasons stated 2 the record, the Court GRANTS Defendant, Federal Insurance Company’s (“Federal’’) 3 || Request for Judicial Notice. Dkt. 34-1. 4 With regard to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, as stated on the 5 record, the Court holds that Federal was not relieved of its duty to defend the Deens against 6 || cross-claims raised in the state court case, Deen v. Deen, 37-2016-00022636-CU-OR-NC, 7 account of its Covered Persons and Dependents Exclusion. The Court also holds that 8 || the cross-complaint in the state court case, Deen v. Fitzgerald Yap Kreditor LLP, 37-2021- 9 || 00015644-CU-FR-NC, did potentially raise a malicious prosecution against the Deens, but 10 || did not potentially raise a defamation claim. Given that Connect only moves for summary 11 ||judgment on its third cause of action for declaratory relief on the ground that the cross- 12 ||claims in Deen vy. Fitzgerald Yap Kreditor LLP raise a defamation claim, the Court 13 || DENIES IN PART Connect’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 35. 14 The Court takes under submission the issue of whether Federal had a duty to defend 15 Deens in light of of Federal’s Intentional Acts Exclusion in both Deen v. Deen and 16 || Deen v. Fitzgerald Yap Kreditor LLP. The Court invites the parties to submit supplemental 17 || briefing on this issue on or by Wednesday, August 28, 2024 and responsive supplemental 18 || briefing on or by Wednesday, September 4, 2024. The Court will later issue a written order 19 || on this issue, which will determine whether to grant or deny Federal’s motion for summary 20 judgment and Connect’s motion for partial summary judgment on its first cause of action 21 || for declaratory relief. Dkts. 34, 35. 22 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: August 21, 2024 25 26 Hot (orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 27 United States District Judge 28