Opinion
CV 07-1054-LEW-EFB.
March 18, 2008
ORDER
Currently before this Court are (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Defendant's Duty to Defend; and (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues. Having considered all papers and arguments, THE COURT NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:
As a preliminary matter, the Court overrules as moot Defendant's Objections filed in Plaintiff's Motion and in Defendant's Motion because the Court did not rely on the evidence objected to by Defendant.
Moreover, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice as to all documents. Further, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice as to both documents.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not bar Plaintiff's claims in this action because the issue necessarily decided in the previous suit is not identical to the issue sought to be litigated in this case. In addition, Plaintiff was and is not in privity with a party to the previous suit.
Cevista Inc. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. CV 028128, California Superior Court, County of San Joaquin, Stockton Branch.
Nevertheless, Defendant does not owe a duty to defend Plaintiff in the Figuerrido Action because of three separate and independent reasons: See see also General Star Indem. Co. v. Superior Court 47 Cal. App. 4th 1586 1590-91 McLaughlin v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. 23 Cal. App. 4th 1132 1152 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Longden 197 Cal. App. 3d 226 233 see also Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch. 11 Cal. 4th 1 26
Figuerrido v. Cevista, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 025392, California Superior Court, County of San Joaquin, Stockton Branch.
Accordingly, the Court: DENIES GRANTS
— Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Defendant's Duty to Defend; and — Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to all causes of action. IT IS SO ORDERED.