Preview
CIV-130
$ 1ORNEY)R PdRTYVNlHOlggflQQ solaoeossg
SSBa Sernooans.
Garrison Law Corporation
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
161 Cortez Avenue,
E4AL AOBRESS ~
YELEPNONENO-.650.726.1111 FAX NO.QPN+g. Pgl,E9
SANMAYKO QQublTY
ATn) EY~EB Plaintiff Michael
).. Chang
~~ 1
sUPERloR coURT QF cALIFoRNIA,coUNTY oF San Mateo JUL 1 2012
smEE'~e 400 COunty Center
400 County Center e uperlor Court
clTY~aP coos: RedWOOd City, CA 94063-1655
ETITIONER M, 7
/'OTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGIIENT
OR ORDER
CASE NUMBER-
CIV 489065
(Check one): E3 UNLIaITEDCASE C3 UMITEDCASE
(jbnount demanded Pweimt demanded was
exceeded $ 25,000) $25,000 or less)
TO ALLPARTIES:
1. A Judgment, decree, or Ider was entered in this ecIon on (dele):
June 27, 2012
BY FAX
2. A copy of the Judgment, decree, or older Is attached
to this notice.
oats: July 11,2012
Gregg S. Garrison
~el
ITYPE 0R P)BIsT NAME CF AlTCRNEY ~ PARTY wslllNUTATTCRNEY) {SXBSATURE)
Paso1 or 2
FomAypnwdhrOSSSasBUso wwwssnsanasoasos
Asosas Counsa of CsEoaas
CIV.1BB Sans Assaay 1. 3)IB)
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
GIV-'I30
FLAINIIFFirc»isottatt: Mich, .Chang
CIV 489065
o~tNNTIREspoltowr: Farmers Insurance Exchange & Truck Ins
PROOF OF SERVICE SY FIRSTLASS MAIL
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
(ItlOTEr You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order Ifyou ere e perttf In the scVon. The person who served
the notice must complete this proof of service.)
1. I am at least
18 years old and not a party to this action.I am a residentof or employed ln the county where the mamng took
place,and my residence or business address is (speof'y):
161 Cortez Avenue, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 San Mateo County
2 I servede copy of the NoVce of Entry of Judgment or Onfer by enclosingit ln a sealed
envelope with postage
a. ~ and
fully prepaid (check one):
deposited
placed
the sealed
the sealed
envelope
envelope
with the United States
for cogectlonand
Postal
processing
Service.
for mailing, following this business's
usual practices,
with which I am readily familiar. On the same
day correspondence is placedfor collection and mailing, lt ls
deposited of business
In Ihe ordinary course with the United StatesPostal Service.
3. The NoVce of Entry of Judgment or Onter was mailed:
a. on(date):
b. from (cnyand state): Half MOOn Bay, CA %Keck 94019
4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a. Name of person served: c. Name of parson served:
Carrie Duple Huynh
Streetaddress: 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, ¹300 Streetaddress:
City: Redwood City City:
State and zip code: CA 94065 Stats and zip code:
b. Name of person servers d. kame of penen serveck
Streetaddress: Street address:
City: City:
State and zip code: State and ztp code:
5.
~ Names and
Number of pages
addresses
attached
of addional persons served are amached. pou may use form PO&03+p.)
I dechrraunder penalty ofpe~ under the laws of the Stateof California that the foregoing Is true and correct.
Date: July 11, 2012
Carol Erdie
Page 2 erg
cv-Qgsga Jeme iangj NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
Gregg S. Garrison
Garrison
(SBN
Law Corporation
141653)
FIKRB
SAN MATEOCOUNTY
161 Cortez Avenue
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Telephone: (650) 726-1111 7 201Z,
jrrt
Herman L Kalfen (SBN 160592)
!
KALFSH LAWCORPOttATlahl
1 Ernbarcadero Center, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415.315.1710
Facsimile: 415.433.5992
Attorneys for PlaintiffMICHAELCHANG, an individual
9
10
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
Case No. CIV 489065
MlCHAELCHANG, an individual,
14 Plaintiff,
,.".." "~ ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'ECOND
MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMEN I
vs. OR, ALTERNATIVELY,FOR SUMMARY
IS
I FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
ADJUDICATION
FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARlvtERS
INSVRANCE EXCHANGE AND TRUCK Date: May 17, 2012
1NSURANCE EXCHANGE, reciprocal inter- Time: 90 am.
18 insurance exchanges; Does 1 to 99, Inclusive, Dept.: L&M
19 Defendants, Trial Date: None
20
21 On May 17, 2012, at 9:00 am„ the second motion for summary judgment or,
alternatively. for summary adjudication, brought by defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange
23
and Truck Insurance Exchange came on for hearing in the Law 8h Motion Department before
24
the Honorable V. Raymond Swope. Carrie Dupic Huynh of Coddington, Hicks &, Danforth
25
appeared in court on behalf of defendants, and Herman Kalfen of KaUen Law Corporation in
27 association with Garrison Law Corporation appeared by telephone for plaintiffMichael Chang.
28 l af 3 pages
10sasa
case No:clv 4NOQ 72750
The following shall be the order of the court:
1. Defendants'equest for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to Nos. 1 through 4.
2. Defendants'videntiary Objections are OVERRULED as to Nos. 2 through 15,
and SUSTAINED as to No. 1
3. The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the First Cause of Action (Breach
of Contract and Duty to Defend) is DENIED. There are triable issues of material fact
8 regarding the nature and content of the liquid that was found and released from the tanks.
Defendants assert that and premise their motion as though the liquid was a pollutant of
Stoddard solvent; whereas, Plaintiff has submitted evidence and takes the position that the
liquid was basically contaminated water. There is no basis upon which the Court can
determine this factual issue as to the exact nature of the released liquid; the nature of the liquid
13
is critical tothe issues of coverage. (See UndLsputed Materfa/ Facts, Sos. 1$, 18, 19 and 22
14
15 and the Opposttion thereto).
4. The Motion for Sununuuy Adjudication as to the Second Cause of Action
pqgt117 (Breach of Contract 8h Duty to Pay Valid Claims for Insured Party) is DENIED. There are
triable issues of material fact regarding the nature and content of the liquid that was found and
19
released from the tanks. Defendants assertthat and present their motion as though the liquid
20
was a pollutant of Stoddard solvent; whereILs, PlaintifF has submitted evidence and takes the
21
22 position that the liquid was basically contaminated water. There is no basis upon which the
23 Court can determine this factual issue as to the exact nature of the released liquid. Also, there
24 are triable issues of material fact as to how the water was released/dispersed via the barking
apart of a system/appliance. (See Undtspwted Natertal Facts, Nos. l$, l8, l9 and 22 and the
26
Opposftton thereto).
27
28 2 ot3 pages
~ Plhneossg
OIDRR
Caselto: ClV 4S9065 72750
5. The Motion for Stunmary Adjudication as to the Third Cause of Action
gotnous Breach of Contract of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) isDENIED. First,Defendants
3
did not meet their burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(2) in demonstrating
that they pursued Plaintiff's claims reasonablY and in good faith. Additionally, and
significantly, there are triable issues of tnaterialfact regarding whether Defendants did act
6
reasonably (See Undisputed Material Fact's Hm $ 2, 53, $ 4,$ 6, & $7 and the Oppositions
8 thereto); there are also triable issues of tteterialfact regarding the exact nature of and cause of
the released liquid from the underground storage tank (See Undisputed Material Foots, /ps.
l$, l8, l9 and 22 and the Opposition thereto).
6. Defendants'otion for S~~~ Judgment is DENIED for the reasons set
12
forth in the Denials of the above Motions for Sutrunary Adjudication.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
I„" DATED: 'JVM 0 4 2012
=16
yg 17 henora~n.
Judge of the
Raymond
Superior
S~
Court
18
19
Approved as to Form:
20
21
DATED: 5/0 Zl&t& CODDINGTON, HICKS Jh DANFORTH
23
Came'Dupic Huynh
Attorneys for Defendants,
25 Farmers Insurattce Exchange and Truck Insut3nce
26 Exchange
27
28 3 ot3 pages
~~~ Chual,
Qgc Xo: QV 48906$ neo
Preview
CIV-130 $ 1ORNEY)R PdRTYVNlHOlggflQQ solaoeossg SSBa Sernooans. Garrison Law Corporation Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 161 Cortez Avenue, E4AL AOBRESS ~ YELEPNONENO-.650.726.1111 FAX NO.QPN+g. Pgl,E9 SANMAYKO QQublTY ATn) EY~EB Plaintiff Michael ).. Chang ~~ 1 sUPERloR coURT QF cALIFoRNIA,coUNTY oF San Mateo JUL 1 2012 smEE'~e 400 COunty Center 400 County Center e uperlor Court clTY~aP coos: RedWOOd City, CA 94063-1655 ETITIONER M, 7 /'OTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGIIENT OR ORDER CASE NUMBER- CIV 489065 (Check one): E3 UNLIaITEDCASE C3 UMITEDCASE (jbnount demanded Pweimt demanded was exceeded $ 25,000) $25,000 or less) TO ALLPARTIES: 1. A Judgment, decree, or Ider was entered in this ecIon on (dele): June 27, 2012 BY FAX 2. A copy of the Judgment, decree, or older Is attached to this notice. oats: July 11,2012 Gregg S. Garrison ~el ITYPE 0R P)BIsT NAME CF AlTCRNEY ~ PARTY wslllNUTATTCRNEY) {SXBSATURE) Paso1 or 2 FomAypnwdhrOSSSasBUso wwwssnsanasoasos Asosas Counsa of CsEoaas CIV.1BB Sans Assaay 1. 3)IB) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER GIV-'I30 FLAINIIFFirc»isottatt: Mich, .Chang CIV 489065 o~tNNTIREspoltowr: Farmers Insurance Exchange & Truck Ins PROOF OF SERVICE SY FIRSTLASS MAIL NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER (ItlOTEr You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order Ifyou ere e perttf In the scVon. The person who served the notice must complete this proof of service.) 1. I am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action.I am a residentof or employed ln the county where the mamng took place,and my residence or business address is (speof'y): 161 Cortez Avenue, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 San Mateo County 2 I servede copy of the NoVce of Entry of Judgment or Onfer by enclosingit ln a sealed envelope with postage a. ~ and fully prepaid (check one): deposited placed the sealed the sealed envelope envelope with the United States for cogectlonand Postal processing Service. for mailing, following this business's usual practices, with which I am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placedfor collection and mailing, lt ls deposited of business In Ihe ordinary course with the United StatesPostal Service. 3. The NoVce of Entry of Judgment or Onter was mailed: a. on(date): b. from (cnyand state): Half MOOn Bay, CA %Keck 94019 4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a. Name of person served: c. Name of parson served: Carrie Duple Huynh Streetaddress: 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, ¹300 Streetaddress: City: Redwood City City: State and zip code: CA 94065 Stats and zip code: b. Name of person servers d. kame of penen serveck Streetaddress: Street address: City: City: State and zip code: State and ztp code: 5. ~ Names and Number of pages addresses attached of addional persons served are amached. pou may use form PO&03+p.) I dechrraunder penalty ofpe~ under the laws of the Stateof California that the foregoing Is true and correct. Date: July 11, 2012 Carol Erdie Page 2 erg cv-Qgsga Jeme iangj NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER Gregg S. Garrison Garrison (SBN Law Corporation 141653) FIKRB SAN MATEOCOUNTY 161 Cortez Avenue Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Telephone: (650) 726-1111 7 201Z, jrrt Herman L Kalfen (SBN 160592) ! KALFSH LAWCORPOttATlahl 1 Ernbarcadero Center, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.315.1710 Facsimile: 415.433.5992 Attorneys for PlaintiffMICHAELCHANG, an individual 9 10 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 Case No. CIV 489065 MlCHAELCHANG, an individual, 14 Plaintiff, ,.".." "~ ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'ECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMEN I vs. OR, ALTERNATIVELY,FOR SUMMARY IS I FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ADJUDICATION FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARlvtERS INSVRANCE EXCHANGE AND TRUCK Date: May 17, 2012 1NSURANCE EXCHANGE, reciprocal inter- Time: 90 am. 18 insurance exchanges; Does 1 to 99, Inclusive, Dept.: L&M 19 Defendants, Trial Date: None 20 21 On May 17, 2012, at 9:00 am„ the second motion for summary judgment or, alternatively. for summary adjudication, brought by defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange 23 and Truck Insurance Exchange came on for hearing in the Law 8h Motion Department before 24 the Honorable V. Raymond Swope. Carrie Dupic Huynh of Coddington, Hicks &, Danforth 25 appeared in court on behalf of defendants, and Herman Kalfen of KaUen Law Corporation in 27 association with Garrison Law Corporation appeared by telephone for plaintiffMichael Chang. 28 l af 3 pages 10sasa case No:clv 4NOQ 72750 The following shall be the order of the court: 1. Defendants'equest for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to Nos. 1 through 4. 2. Defendants'videntiary Objections are OVERRULED as to Nos. 2 through 15, and SUSTAINED as to No. 1 3. The Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract and Duty to Defend) is DENIED. There are triable issues of material fact 8 regarding the nature and content of the liquid that was found and released from the tanks. Defendants assert that and premise their motion as though the liquid was a pollutant of Stoddard solvent; whereas, Plaintiff has submitted evidence and takes the position that the liquid was basically contaminated water. There is no basis upon which the Court can determine this factual issue as to the exact nature of the released liquid; the nature of the liquid 13 is critical tothe issues of coverage. (See UndLsputed Materfa/ Facts, Sos. 1$, 18, 19 and 22 14 15 and the Opposttion thereto). 4. The Motion for Sununuuy Adjudication as to the Second Cause of Action pqgt117 (Breach of Contract 8h Duty to Pay Valid Claims for Insured Party) is DENIED. There are triable issues of material fact regarding the nature and content of the liquid that was found and 19 released from the tanks. Defendants assertthat and present their motion as though the liquid 20 was a pollutant of Stoddard solvent; whereILs, PlaintifF has submitted evidence and takes the 21 22 position that the liquid was basically contaminated water. There is no basis upon which the 23 Court can determine this factual issue as to the exact nature of the released liquid. Also, there 24 are triable issues of material fact as to how the water was released/dispersed via the barking apart of a system/appliance. (See Undtspwted Natertal Facts, Nos. l$, l8, l9 and 22 and the 26 Opposftton thereto). 27 28 2 ot3 pages ~ Plhneossg OIDRR Caselto: ClV 4S9065 72750 5. The Motion for Stunmary Adjudication as to the Third Cause of Action gotnous Breach of Contract of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) isDENIED. First,Defendants 3 did not meet their burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(2) in demonstrating that they pursued Plaintiff's claims reasonablY and in good faith. Additionally, and significantly, there are triable issues of tnaterialfact regarding whether Defendants did act 6 reasonably (See Undisputed Material Fact's Hm $ 2, 53, $ 4,$ 6, & $7 and the Oppositions 8 thereto); there are also triable issues of tteterialfact regarding the exact nature of and cause of the released liquid from the underground storage tank (See Undisputed Material Foots, /ps. l$, l8, l9 and 22 and the Opposition thereto). 6. Defendants'otion for S~~~ Judgment is DENIED for the reasons set 12 forth in the Denials of the above Motions for Sutrunary Adjudication. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 I„" DATED: 'JVM 0 4 2012 =16 yg 17 henora~n. Judge of the Raymond Superior S~ Court 18 19 Approved as to Form: 20 21 DATED: 5/0 Zl&t& CODDINGTON, HICKS Jh DANFORTH 23 Came'Dupic Huynh Attorneys for Defendants, 25 Farmers Insurattce Exchange and Truck Insut3nce 26 Exchange 27 28 3 ot3 pages ~~~ Chual, Qgc Xo: QV 48906$ neo