Rubins Contractors, v. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co.

2 Citing briefs

  1. Friends of Animals v. United States Bureau of Land Management

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim

    Filed March 31, 2017

    The D.C. Circuit has made clear that the Article III case or controversy requirement applies to declaratory judgments, and the fact that a plaintiff “also seek[s] declaratory relief does not affect [the Court’s] mootness determination.” Conyers v. Reagan, 765 F.2d 1124, 1127-28 (D.C. Cir. 1985), see also Rubins Contractors, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 821 F.2d 671, 673 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“Congress has empowered federal courts to award declaratory relief, with narrow exceptions, in any Article III ‘case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction.”’) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2201).

  2. Capitol Specialty Insurance Corporation v. Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, LLP et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed February 18, 2011

    See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Cases involving the interpretation of an insurance policy are particularly appropriate for summary disposition, because the construction of an insurance policy – as with any contract – is a question of law to be determined by the Court. See Rubins Contractors, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 821 F.2d 671, 673 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Sigmund v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 374 F. Supp. 2d 33, Case 1:10-cv-02079-ESH Document 5 Filed 02/18/11 Page 11 of 30 -9- 36 (D.D.C. 2005); In re Corriea, 719 A.2d 1234, 1239 (D.C. 1998); see also Cameron v. USAA Prop. & Cas.