Allstate Insurance Company v. Richard Thacher et al, No. 2:2008cv03326 - Document 237 (C.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. As such, in the interests of judicial economy, the Court informs the parties that it is now contemplating vacating its November 23, 2009 Order 196 granting Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial on the sole issue of damages as well as the Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. The Court would instead reinstate the September 18, 2009 Judgment 173 , and that Judgment would then serve as a final judgment that may be reviewed upon appeal. Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to submit their position papers with respect to the Court's position stated in this Order on or before May 31, 2011. (lom)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Allstate Insurance Company v. Richard Thacher et al Doc. 237 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Allstate Insurance Co., 12 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 16 Richard Thacher, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV 08-3326-RSWL (FMOx) ORDER On March 1, 2011, the Court held a status 20 conference regarding this Action and vacated the court 21 trial set for March 15, 2011. Counsel for both parties 22 informed the Court that they would meet and confer to 23 discuss how they intend to proceed with this Action. 24 The Court is now in receipt of the Joint Status Report 25 submitted by Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company and 26 Defendants Richard Thacher, Valerie Ann Thacher, and 27 Guadalupe Trujillo [234]. Plaintiff Allstate has 28 informed the Court that it elects to have this case 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 proceed as a trial de novo. On the other hand, 2 Defendants have informed the Court that they would like 3 to proceed with a court trial on the Court’s 4 determination of damages only. 5 While the Court found that the damages awarded to 6 Defendant Trujillo in the arbitration were 7 unconscionable in light of Defendant’s actual injuries 8 and the settlement figures proposed initially, upon 9 further review, the Court finds that proceeding with a 10 trial de novo could lead to a similar verdict to the 11 one returned by the jury in the first trial. 12 Specifically, the jury could not determine the amount 13 of damages to award to the Defendants. Rather, the 14 jury was limited to determining whether the arbitration 15 award was unreasonable or the product of fraud or 16 collusion. The jury in a new trial will be limited to 17 resolving this same issue, which could potentially lead 18 to a similar verdict to the one returned by the jury in 19 the first trial. 20 As such, in the interests of judicial economy, the 21 Court informs the parties that it is now contemplating 22 vacating its November 23, 2009 Order [196] granting 23 Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial on the sole issue of 24 damages as well as the Motion to Alter or Amend the 25 Judgment. The Court would instead reinstate the 26 September 18, 2009 Judgment [173], and that Judgment 27 would then serve as a final judgment that may be 28 reviewed upon appeal. 2 1 Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to submit 2 their position papers with respect to the Court’s 3 position stated in this Order on or before May 31, 4 2011. 5 6 DATED: May 16, 2011 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 11 HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW Senior, U.S. District Court Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
