2019-00248410-CU-IC

Ca Automobile Ins. Co. vs. Bruce Judah Mattos

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Judgment

Filed By: O’Connor, Lee P.

Plaintiff California Automobile Insurance Co.’s (“CAIC”) motion for summary judgment is ruled upon as follows.

Overview

This is a declaratory relief action. The defendants are Bruce J. Mattos (“Bruce”) and Leana Quant-Faragasso (“Leana”).

CAIC issued an homeowners insurance policy to Julie Mattos, Bruce’s wife. Therefore, Bruce was qualified as an insured under the policy. At some point, Bruce filed a gender discrimination, retaliation and defamation lawsuit against the Regents of the University of California and its employees, Enrequita Rico and Leana (“Bruce’s Action”). As against Leana, Bruce alleged that she defamed him. Bruce ultimately dismissed Leana from the suit.

On 10/16/2018, Leana filed a lawsuit against the Regents of the University of California, Patrick Crowl and Bruce. (“Leana’s Action”) As against Bruce, Leana alleged causes of action for hostile work environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and wrongful use of civil proceedings.

CAIC provided Bruce with a defense to Leana’s Action, with a reservation of rights, reserving the right to seek reimbursement of all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in providing the defense.

CAIC contends that an actual controversy exists in that CAIC contends that the policy does not cover Leana’s action because the allegations do not fall within the insuring agreements of the policy.

No trial is scheduled.

CAIC’s request for judicial notice is granted.

CAIC moves for summary judgment on the ground that Leana’s complaint in the Leana Action do not fall within the insuring agreements of the policy and/or that the allegations are excluded by the intentional acts, business pursuit’s and sexual molestation exclusions.

Leana filed an opposition to the motion. Bruce, who filed a general denial in pro per, has not opposed the motion.

Analysis

CAIC relies on 10 undisputed material facts to support its motion. UMF 1 is that CAIC provided Bruce a homeowners insurance policy and cites to the policy as evidence. UMF 2 is that Leana filed Leana’s Action. UMF 3 is that CAIC provided Bruce with a defense under a reservation of rights. UMFs 4-10 identify certain allegations in the complaint in Leana’s Action.

Leana opposes the motion, in part, on the ground that CAIC fails to satisfy its initial burden because CAIC failed to identify the specific policy exclusions in its separate statement.

The Court agrees with Leana. Here, CAIC’s separate statement is silent as to any of the policy exclusions which CAIC contends apply to exclude covering Bruce in Leana’s action. Thus, there are no material facts as to the policy exclusions. (See, e.g., Zimmerman, Rosenfeld v. Larson (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1477 [the “Golden Rule” of summary judgment/adjudication: “If it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.”

Having failed to satisfy its initial burden, the burden does not shift to Leana to show a triable issue of material fact.

The motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. Leana shall prepare a formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and CCP 437c(g).

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Defendants’ counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Defendants’ counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person or by telephone.