The Print Lab Inc. et al v. Scottsdale Insurance Company et alNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment on The Print Lab's ComplaintC.D. Cal.February 4, 20191 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 COZEN O’CONNOR Valerie D. Rojas, State Bar No. 180041 vrojas@cozen.com Michael Ruocco, State Bar No. 297414 mruocco@cozen.com 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5556 Telephone: 213.892.7900 Facsimile: 213.892.7999 Attorneys for Defendant SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THE PRINT LAB, INC., a California corporation, STACI STEWART, TOMMY GELINAS and JUAN FLORES, Plaintiffs, vs. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:17-cv-05148 GW(Ex) Matter Assigned to Judge George H. Wu DEFENDANT SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY’S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Filed Concurrently with Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law; Declaration of Michael Zartman; Declaration of Valerie D. Rojas; Appendix of Exhibits; [Proposed] Order and [Proposed] Judgment] Date: March 4, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. Courtroom: 9D Action Filed: April 17, 2017 TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 4, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 9D of the above-entitled Court, Case 2:17-cv-05148-GW-E Document 70 Filed 02/04/19 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1708 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 located at 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Plaintiff/Counter- Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”) will, and hereby does, move this Court for an Order Granting Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs The Print Lab, Inc. (“The Print Lab”), Staci Stewart (“Stewart”), Tommy Gelinas (“Gelinas”), and Juan Flores’ (“Flores”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) complaint against Scottsdale pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56. First, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Scottsdale is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for breach of contract because Plaintiffs are not entitled to additional benefits under the business and management indemnity policy issued by Scottsdale to The Print Lab (the “Policy”) for the underlying action, titled, Rodriguez v. The Print Lab, et. al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC617786 (the “Underlying Action.”), Scottsdale’s breach was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s alleged damages and Plaintiffs did not suffer damages as a result of the alleged breach. Second, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Scottsdale is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, because: 1) Scottsdale does not owe Plaintiffs additional benefits under the Policy; 2) Scottsdale’s alleged bad faith was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s alleged damages and (3) Plaintiffs cannot prove that they suffered damages as a result of Scottsdale’s alleged bad faith. Additionally and alternatively, Scottsdale will and hereby does move the Court for Partial Summary Judgment as set forth below. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Scottsdale is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for breach of contract because Plaintiffs are not entitled to additional benefits under the business and management indemnity policy issued by Scottsdale to The Print Lab (the “Policy”) for the underlying action, titled, Rodriguez v. The Print Lab, et. al., Los Angeles Superior Case 2:17-cv-05148-GW-E Document 70 Filed 02/04/19 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1709 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Court, Case No. BC617786 (the “Underlying Action.”), Scottsdale’s breach was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s alleged damages and Plaintiffs did not suffer damages as a result of the alleged breach. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Scottsdale is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, because: 1) Scottsdale does not owe Plaintiffs additional benefits under the Policy; 2) Scottsdale’s alleged bad faith was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s alleged damages and (3) Plaintiffs cannot prove that they suffered damages as a result of Scottsdale’s alleged bad faith. This Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment is based on this Notice; the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto; the Statement of Undisputed Facts and Conclusions of Law; the Declarations of Valerie Rojas and Michael Zartman; and Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently herewith. This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to LR 7-3 which took place on January 23, 2019. DATED: February 4, 2019 COZEN O’CONNOR By: /s/Valerie D. Rojas Valerie D. Rojas Michael Ruocco Attorneys for Defendant SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY Case 2:17-cv-05148-GW-E Document 70 Filed 02/04/19 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:1710
