This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/12/2019 at 15:14:10 (UTC).

GARY MADDOCK ET AL VS CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO

Case Summary

On 04/25/2017 GARY MADDOCK filed a Contract - Insurance lawsuit against CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHAEL JOHNSON and ALAN S. ROSENFIELD. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9212

  • Filing Date:

    04/25/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Insurance

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MICHAEL JOHNSON

ALAN S. ROSENFIELD

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MADDOCK MYONG

MADDOCK GARY

Defendants and Respondents

STEIG DOUGLAS WAYNE

CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE

CSE SAFEGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY

CSE INSURANCE GROUP

DKS CLAIM SERVICE

HALE DOUGLAS RAND

AMERICAN CLAIMS EXPERTS

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

GARLAND RESTORATION INC

ACCURATE LEAK LOCATORS INC

GMF FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP DBA

ACCURATE LEAK LOCATORS INC.

GARLAND RESTORATION INC.

CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY

GMF FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP.

HALE DOUGLAS RAND DBA AMERICAN CLAIMS EXPERTS

STEIG DOUGLAS WAYNE DBA DKS CLAIM SERVICE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

RAND-LEWIS SUZANNE E. ESQ.

RAND-LEWIS PLCS

RAND-LEWIS SUZANNE ELIZABETH

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA LLP

SELMAN BREITMAN LLP

MOORHEAD BRIDGET KLEIN

HATEM RICHARD C. ESQ.

D'ANDREA MICHAEL A JR

MARTIN PAUL T.

 

Court Documents

CSE DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2/8/2018: CSE DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT ACCURATE LEAK LOCATORS, INC.?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;

2/26/2018: DEFENDANT ACCURATE LEAK LOCATORS, INC.?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO THE CSE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER TO RESOLVE CSE DEFENDANTS' STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE FIRST AND LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY; ETC.

3/27/2018: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO THE CSE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER TO RESOLVE CSE DEFENDANTS' STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE FIRST AND LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY; ETC.

Unknown

4/25/2018: Unknown

DECLARATION OF ELAINE F. HARWELL IN SUPPORT OF CSE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

5/14/2018: DECLARATION OF ELAINE F. HARWELL IN SUPPORT OF CSE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT ACCURATE LEAK LOCATORS, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT;

5/14/2018: DEFENDANT ACCURATE LEAK LOCATORS, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT;

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DOUGLAS RAND HALE DBA AMERICAN CLAIMS EXPERTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

5/15/2018: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DOUGLAS RAND HALE DBA AMERICAN CLAIMS EXPERTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

DOUGLAS RAND HALE'S ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6/27/2018: DOUGLAS RAND HALE'S ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

DEFENDANTS? ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/3/2018: DEFENDANTS? ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Exhibit List

3/22/2019: Exhibit List

Unknown

1/16/2018: Unknown

Proof of Service

1/17/2018: Proof of Service

Unknown

1/4/2018: Unknown

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

10/26/2017: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

5/2/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Proof of Service

6/30/2017: Proof of Service

DECLARATION OF BRIDGET A. MOORHEAD IN SUPPORT OF CSE DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' 1ST ? 8TH CAUSES, OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT

6/30/2017: DECLARATION OF BRIDGET A. MOORHEAD IN SUPPORT OF CSE DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' 1ST ? 8TH CAUSES, OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF RESET HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

8/7/2017: NOTICE OF RESET HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

132 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Orders Continuing Defendants' MSJ, Extending Time for Plaintiffs' Opposition to MSJ and Continuing Trial and all Related Dates) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Orders Continuing Defenda...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (for Orders Continuing Defendants' MSJ, Extending Time for Plaintiffs' Opposition to MSJ and Continuing Trial and all Related Dates); Filed by Gary Maddock (Plaintiff); Myong Maddock (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Notice ( of Non-Opposition To Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment & POS); Filed by Civil Service Employees Insurance Company (Defendant); CSE Insurance Group (Defendant); CSE Safeguard Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 56; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Order (Proposed Order); Filed by Garland Restoration, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • Declaration (of Jim Gortner); Filed by Civil Service Employees Insurance Company (Defendant); CSE Insurance Group (Defendant); CSE Safeguard Insurance Company (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
258 More Docket Entries
  • 06/13/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Gary Maddock (Plaintiff); Myong Maddock (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Gary Maddock (Plaintiff); Myong Maddock (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Gary Maddock (Plaintiff); Myong Maddock (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT [INSURER]; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Gary Maddock (Plaintiff); Myong Maddock (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC659212    Hearing Date: July 08, 2020    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

GARY MADDOCK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC659212

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Date: July 8, 2020

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

FSC: August 11, 2020

Jury Trial: August 24, 2020

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Civil Service Employees Insurance Company(“CSEIC”); CSE Insurance Group (“CSE Group”); CSE Safeguard Insurance Company (“CSE Safeguard”); and GMF Financial Services Corporation (“GMF”)

RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Gary Maddock and Myong Maddock, individually and as Trustees of the Maddock Trust dated December 22, 2004

The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers. No reply papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) violation of California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) fraud; (6) negligent misrepresentation; (7) concealment; (8) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (9) breach of contract; (10) general negligence; (11) concealment; (12) breach of contract; and (13) violation of California Health and Safety Code, Section 17920.3. Plaintiffs’ complaint arises from CSEIC and CSE Safeguard allegedly denying Plaintiffs’ insurance claims arising from water damage at their home.

Allegations of the SAC

Plaintiffs’ SAC alleges, in part, that: (1) on August 1, 2015, Plaintiff Myong Maddock noticed water damage to the southwest corner and western side of the living room, immediately mopped up the water, and reported such loss to CSEIC and CSE Safeguard (SAC at ¶ 19); (2) Plaintiffs were never contacted by CSEIC and CSE Safeguard as to the call and they were not advised that a claim had been opened (Id.); (3) Plaintiff Gary Maddock noticed mold on the western side of his living room hardwood floor on October 3, 2015 and reported the mold to CSEIC and CSE Safeguard believing it would be covered and that his CSEIC and CSE Safeguard accepted the claim and it was assigned claim number 00541030 (Id. at ¶ 20); (4) CSEIC and CSE Safeguard called and told Plaintiffs that they were closing claim number 00541030 as it was the same claim reported by Plaintiff Myong Maddock in August of 2015 (Id. ¶ 21); (5) on October 29, 2015, nearly three months after Plaintiff Myong Maddock first reported the water loss of August 1, 2015 and more than three weeks following Plaintiff Gary Maddock reporting mold in the same area as the water loss on October 3, 2015, Joshua Yampolsk with the full knowledge and consent of CSEIC and CSE Safeguard, formally acknowledged the loss of August 1, 2015 and assigned it the claim number of 00541034 (the “First Claim”) and represented that there was coverage (Id. at ¶ 23); and (6) the First Claim was denied. (Id. at ¶ 32.)

The SAC further alleges that: (1) on December 2, 2015, Plaintiffs observed water suddenly escaping from a source beneath the concrete slab foundation of their home into the garage (SAC at ¶ 29); (2) Plaintiffs attempted to locate the leak and removed concrete in the area (Id.); (3) on December 3, 2015, Plaintiffs obtained a leak detection company and were advised to immediately shut off their water and report the sudden discharge of water to CSEIC and CSE Safeguard as it was the source of the water intrusion (Id. at ¶ 30); (4) on December 4, 2015, Plaintiffs called CSEIC and CSE Safeguard to report that in addition to the prior water, they now had visible water which had suddenly discharged near the garage and that they had to shut off all the water to their home (Id. at ¶ 31); and (5) CSEIC and CSE Safeguard did nothing except tell Plaintiffs that they were assigning another claim number, claim number 00541961 (the “Second Claim”).

The Instant Motion

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication in their favor and against Plaintiffs. Defendants assert that: (1) Plaintiffs’ breach of contract cause of action as to the First Claim fails as a matter of law; (2) Plaintiffs’ breach of contract cause of action as to the Second Claim has no merit because CSE Safeguard paid out all policy benefits owed; (3) CSE Safeguard did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) CSEIC and GMF are not proper defendants as they did not issue the subject policy and owe no duties to Plaintiffs; (5) Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for violation of the Unfair Competition Law fails as a matter of law; (6) Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress fails to state a cause of action; and (7) there is no evidence to support Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim.

Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ motion on the grounds that Defendants have not met any of the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 437c and as such Defendants’ motion must be denied. Specifically, in the points and authorities section of their opposition (Opposition at 20:16-22:22), Plaintiffs argue that: (1) each fact stated by Defendants is disputed; (2) Defendants’ statement of facts is defective; (3) all the evidence proffered by Defendants is objectionable; and (4) Defendants’ request for summary adjudication should be denied in its entirety because they have failed to provide the Court with undisputed facts specifically correlated to each individual cause of action alleged in the SAC. Plaintiffs fail to rebut any of the argumnts advanced by Defendants with citations to legal authority[1]. (Opposition at 2:2-20:15.)

DISCUSSION

“The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide the courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Summary judgment is appropriate when all of the papers submitted show there is not triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486, 492.)

A defendant “moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action.” (Sangha v. LaBarbera (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 79, 84.) In reviewing a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication a court examines “the moving party’s motion, including the evidence offered in support of the motion.” (Dollinger DeAnza Associates v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1144.) “In determining whether the parties have met their respective burdens, the court must consider all the evidence and all the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom . . . and must view such evidence . . . and such inferences . . . in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Id.) “There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Id.) “[A] party cannot avoid summary judgment by asserting facts based on mere speculation and conjecture, but instead must produce admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact.” (Id. at 1144-1145.)

“Summary adjudication motions are procedurally identical to summary judgment motions.” (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.830, 859.) “A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit . . . [or] that there is no merit to a claim for damages.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Id., emphasis added.) Summary judgment is a drastic remedy. (San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316.) In the insurance context “[a]n insured has the burden of proving its claim falls within the scope of the policy’s basic coverage, even where the insurer brings a motion for summary judgment.” (Roberts v. Assurance Co. of America (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1398, 1407.)

Issue No.1: Procedural Defects

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(b) says that “[i]f made in the alternative, a motion for summary adjudication may make reference to the same evidence submitted in support of the summary judgment motion.” California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(c) says that “[i]f summary adjudication is sought, whether separately or as an alternative to the motion for summary judgment, the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.” California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 437c(b)(1) says that in connection with a motion for summary judgment “[e]ach of the material facts shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.”

“The due process aspect of the separate statement requirement is self evident.” (San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316.) A separate statement must include a separate statement “setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts which the moving party contends are undisputed.” (Haney v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 623, 632.) California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(d)(3) says that “[c]itation to the evidence in support of each material fact must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.” “The separate statement is not merely a technical requirement, it is an indispensable part of the summary judgment or adjudication process.” (Whitehead v. Habig (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 896, 902.) Separate statements “permit trial courts to expeditiously review complex motions . . . for summary judgment to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are disputed.” (Id.) “[I]f either party fails to comply with the applicable separate statement requirement, that failure may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground to decide the motion adversely to the offending party.” (Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1209.)

The Court finds that Defendants’ motion has numerous procedural defects. Defendants’ separate statement does not repeat verbatim the grounds on which summary judgment or summary adjudication is sought as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(c). While Defendants’ notice of motion articulates the basis for their motion, the separate statement only sets forth four of the thirteen causes of action that Defendants’ motion is based upon but does not set forth the specific issues in connection with those four causes of action. The issues, however, are set forth in Defendants’ notice of motion. (Notice of Motion at 2:14-3:5.)

Additionally, Defendants assert in their notice of motion that the entire SAC fails to state any causes of action with respect to CSEIC and GMC because they are not parties to the insurance contract at issue and owe no duties to Plaintiffs. (Notice of Motion at 3:3-5). The separate statement, however, fails to address or even reference the fifth through thirteenth causes of action in the SAC, does not separately address the issue of duties, and thereby does not conform to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(c). Defendants rely on the same 52 material facts with respect to each cause of action set forth in their separate statement.

Also, while Defendants indicate in their notice of motion and memorandum of points and authorities that there is no evidence for Plaintiffs to support their punitive damages claim, Defendants’ separate statement does not reference punitive damages as an issue for summary judgment or summary adjudication.

Due to the procedural defects that exist in connection with Defendants’ motion, the Court need not rule on Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections.

Exercising its discretion pursuant to Parkview Villas, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by CourtCall if the parties do not submit on the tentative.  If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 8th day of July 2020

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] “Contentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.” (Moulton v. Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.)