AAA Nevada Insurance Company v. Chau et al
Filing
133
ORDER Denying 126 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees. The previous 125 Order is VACATED IN PART with respect to the Granting of attorneys fees as sanctions. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 02/07/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
AAA NEVADA INSURANCE COMPANY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
VINH CHAU; LANG CHAU; DOES 1-20; and )
ROES 1-20, inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants,
)
BENJAMIN D. BUENAVENTURA, JR., et al., )
)
Intervenors.
)
___________________________________ )
2:08-cv-00827-RCJ-CWH
ORDER
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff AAA Nevada Insurance Company’s (“AAA”) Motion
for Attorney’s Fees (#126).
BACKGROUND
19
On November 20, 2006, Defendant Vinh Chau was in a car accident with Benjamin
20
Buenaventura, which resulted in Benjamin Buenaventura’s death. Chau was insured under
21
an AAA insurance policy at the time of the accident. The insurance policy with AAA provided
22
bodily injury liability limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. Chau reported
23
the accident to AAA on November 21, 2006. On December 18, 2006, Kristine Jansen, Esq.
24
of Christensen Law Offices, LLC (“Christensen Law Offices”) wrote to AAA stating that she
25
represented Clara Buenaventura and Benjamin Buenaventura in a claim for personal injuries
26
against Vinh Chau as a result of the accident. In that letter, counsel for the Buenaventuras
27
stated that the Buenaventuras were willing to settle for the policy limits provided that AAA
28
would pay the limits within two weeks, and provide proof that those are the only policy limits
available to provide compensation to her clients for the accident. Counsel for the
1
Buenaventuras did not identify all heirs of decedent or all lienholders, nor did counsel provide
2
a release. AAA attempted to contact Jansen to follow up with questions on these two matters
3
and respond to the offer, and went to the extent of physically visiting Jansen’s offices and
4
writing a check for the amount, but was unable to get in touch with Jansen. AAA continued to
5
attempt to settle the offer with Jansen. Finally, in April 2007, Christensen Law Offices wrote
6
to AAA that its client was no longer willing to settle for the policy limits and alleged that AAA
7
had failed to respond to the policy limits demand.
8
In September 2007, heirs of Benjamin Buenaventura filed a wrongful death action
9
against Chau in the Eighth Judicial District Court. In June 2008, AAA filed suit against
10
Defendants Vinh Chau and Lang Chau, seeking a declaratory judgment finding that AAA’s
11
obligations to indemnify Vinh Chau and Lang Chau for any judgment by Clara Buenaventura
12
and/or the remainder of Benjamin Buenaventura’s heirs and/or the estate of Benjamin
13
Buenaventura is subject to the policy limits of $100,000.00.
14
Buenaventura, Jr., Mark Francis D. Buenaventura, Fides B. Palapar, Mary Christine B.
15
Pangilinan, Laura E. Buenaventura, Maria A. Buenaventura, Rosalind Bacus, and Clara
16
Deleon Buenaventura (collectively, the “Intervenors” or “Buenaventuras”) moved to intervene
17
(#33). Ultimately, the Court granted (#80) the Motion to Intervene (#33) and allowed the
18
Intervenors an opportunity to respond to a Motion for Summary Judgment (#57) filed by AAA.
19
On July 15, 2010, the Court granted (#94) the Motion for Summary Judgment (#57), granting
20
declaratory relief by issuing a declaration that AAA’s liability under the insurance policy is fixed
21
at $100,000.00 and AAA’s failure to settle within the time limit set by Intervenors did not
22
constitute bad faith under Nevada law.
In April 2009, Benjamin
23
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found (#108) that the Intervenors did not have standing to
24
sue AAA for a declaration of coverage because the Intervenors are not parties to the insurance
25
contract between AAA and Chau, and do not have a judgment against Chau. The Ninth Circuit
26
dismissed the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction because Intervenors lacked standing to
27
appeal. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the limitations on Intervenor’s intervention at the district
28
court level.
2
1
Intervenors filed a new lawsuit on March 19, 2012, against AAA in Nevada state court.
2
As part of that action, Intervenors requested “Relief From Declaratory Judgment.” (State Court
3
Complaint, Ex. B attached to Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (#121).) AAA filed a Motion for a Permanent
4
Injunction (#121), and the Court granted (#125) a permanent injunction preventing Intervenors
5
from bringing a claim in state court to void this Court’s declaratory judgment. The Court also
6
stated that it would allow AAA to recover attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in filing the Motion
7
for Permanent Injunction (#121) because the Court found that Intervenors’ claim of relief in the
8
state court case to declare this Court’s judgment void is an impermissible claim which would
9
most likely never have been filed by a reasonable attorney. AAA was directed to submit an
10
accounting of such fees and costs, and Intervenors were allowed an opportunity to respond
11
and object to the accounting regarding the reasonableness of such fees and costs.
12
On August 15, 2012, AAA filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees (#126). On September 4,
13
2012, Intervenors filed a Notice of Automatic Stay and Bankruptcy Filing (#127), stating that
14
Defendants Vinh Chau and Lang Chau filed for bankruptcy on August 28, 2012.
15
DISCUSSION
16
A. Automatic Stay Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362
17
Intervenors, in their notice of the automatic stay (#127), state that “the parties may not
18
file any and all Motions, Responses, Oppositions, writs, Appeals or other pleadings until judicial
19
clarification regarding the scope of the automatic stay is received.” Intervenors “specifically
20
reserve[d]” the right to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (#126), a Rule
21
60(b) motion for relief from Order (#125) dated August 14, 2012, a notice of appeal from Order
22
(#125) dated August 14, 2012, and a Rule 60(c) motion for relief from Judgment (#94).
23
On September 10, 2012, AAA filed a Notice of Non-Opposition (#129), requesting that
24
the Motion for Attorney’s Fees (#126) be granted in its entirety due to Intervenors’ failure to
25
oppose. AAA argues that the automatic stay pursuant to the Chaus’ bankruptcy filing has no
26
effect on the claims and motions pending against Intervenors. On September 12, 2012,
27
Intervenors filed a response (#131) to the Notice of Non-Opposition (#129), claiming that the
28
claims herein are so interrelated that the bankruptcy stay should apply against any
3
1
proceedings involving Intervenors.
2
The automatic stay “protects only the debtor, property of the debtor or property of the
3
estate. It does not protect non-debtor parties or their property.” In re Chugach Forest Products,
4
Inc., 23 F.3d 241, 246 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Advanced Ribbons & Office Prods. v. U.S.
5
Interstate Distrib., 125 B.R. 259, 263 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1991)). Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s
6
fees (#126) seeks fees and costs against Intervenors only, and does not concern property of
7
the debtor. For that reason, the automatic stay does not apply to the motion (#126) or any
8
other proceedings or claims concerning Intervenors without involving Defendants, the debtors
9
in bankruptcy, and the Court may rule on the motion (#126).
10
B. Motion for Attorney’s Fees (#126)
11
The Court previously ruled that fees and costs are appropriate in this matter due to the
12
frivolousness of the claim brought by Intervenors in state court. However, at this time, the
13
Court reconsiders the previous Order (#125) granting sanctions, as requested in Intervenors’
14
response (#131) to the Notice of Non-Opposition (#129).
15
The procedural history in this case illuminates the need to reconsider sanctions.
16
Initially, AAA filed this action without joining the Buenaventuras/Intervenors, despite seeking
17
declaratory relief that AAA’s liability for any claims filed by the Buenaventuras against
18
Defendants would be limited to the policy limit of $100,000.00. In April 2009, Intervenors
19
moved to intervene. The Court denied (#59) the motion to intervene initially because the
20
Intervenors had not yet obtained a judgment in the underlying state court case. Intervenors
21
filed a motion for reconsideration, and a motion to dismiss, wherein Intervenors argued that
22
AAA’s claims in this action were premature because the underlying state court action had not
23
yet been resolved.
24
On November 4, 2009, the Court dismissed (#76) the action for lack of subject matter
25
jurisdiction, finding that AAA had failed to establish that the action was ripe. Thereafter, the
26
Court granted (#80) a motion to reconsider, vacated the November 4, 2009 Order (#76)
27
dismissing the action, and allowed Intervenors to intervene for the purpose of contesting AAA’s
28
attempt to secure a declaratory judgment in regards to insurance liability because Intervenors
4
1
“[have the most significant interest in the outcome of this action.” (Order dated April 30, 2010
2
(#80).)
3
declaratory relief that AAA’s liability under the insurance policy with Defendants is fixed at
4
$100,000.00 and AAA’s failure to settle within the time limit set by Intervenors does not
5
constitute bad faith. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part Intervenors’
6
appeal, noting that Nevada law does not recognize a right of action on the part of a third-party
7
claimant against an insurance company for bad-faith refusal to settle. (Memorandum (#108).)
8
The remaining claims in the appeal were dismissed on the basis that the Buenaventuras do
9
not have standing to appeal because they do not have standing to sue AAA. (Id.)
On July 15, 2010, the Court granted (#94) summary judgment to AAA and issued
10
The Court recognizes, as it did previously, that Intervenors have the most significant
11
interest in the outcome of this action, and had to pursue their rights diligently despite the
12
procedural hurdles presented by the filing of this action prior to a judgment in the underlying
13
state court action. While the Court previously found that Intervenors did not act reasonably in
14
filing the state court action seeking to overturn this Court’s judgment, the Court hereby vacates
15
the previous ruling (#125) with respect to sanctions, and denies the motion for attorney’s fees
16
(#126) on the basis that Intervenors did not act unreasonably under the complex procedural
17
circumstances of this case, given their limited ability to participate in the proceedings herein
18
due to the filing of this action before the state court action was resolved.
19
CONCLUSION
20
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that AAA’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees
21
(#126) is DENIED. The previous Order (#125) is VACATED IN PART with respect to the
22
granting of attorney’s fees as sanctions.
23
24
DATED: This _____ day February, 2013.
7th day of of February, 2013.
25
26
_________________________________
United States District Judge
27
28
5
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
