C.E. Peter Allen et al v. Steadfast Insurance Company, No. 2:2014cv01218 - Document 43 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION RE FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian, re Stipulation for Judgment, 42 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: (1) the Stipulation is approved; (2) this action is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety and the Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Steadfast accordingly; and (3) neither plaintiffs nor Steadfast may seek costs. See Order for further details. (dml)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
C.E. Peter Allen et al v. Steadfast Insurance Company Doc. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 C.E. PETER ALLEN, et al., 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiffs, v. STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. CV 14-1218 JC ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION RE FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On February 18, 2014, plaintiffs C.E. Peter Allen and Timothy James Parker (collectively “plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Steadfast Insurance Company (“Steadfast”) for declaratory relief (claims 1-3), breach of contract (claim 4), and breach of the insurer’s duty of good faith and fair dealing (claim 5), essentially stemming from Steadfast’s refusal to defend plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against them in state court. The parties consented to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. On July 22, 2014, the parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, respectively (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”) and (“Steadfast’s Motion”) (collectively “Motions”), on the duty to defend. The parties thereafter submitted further briefing. On August 19, 2014, the Court held a hearing on the Motions. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On August 22, 2014, after thoroughly considering the arguments of counsel, 2 the record and the applicable law, the Court issued a lengthy Order granting 3 Steadfast’s Motion and denying Plaintiffs’ Motion (“August Order”). As 4 Steadfast’s Motion sought partial summary judgment as to claims 1-4, the August 5 Order did not address claim 5. 6 On September 15, 2014, the parties submitted a Stipulation Re Final 7 Judgment (“Stipulation”) by which they agreed: (1) the August Order disposed of 8 all remaining causes of actions plaintiffs pleaded against Steadfast in this action; 9 (2) this action should be dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety, with Judgment 10 being entered in favor of Steadfast; and (3) neither plaintiffs nor Steadfast would 11 seek costs. 12 In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: (1) the Stipulation is 13 approved; (2) this action is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety and the Clerk 14 shall enter judgment in favor of Steadfast accordingly; and (3) neither plaintiffs nor 15 Steadfast may seek costs. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of September, 2014. 17 18 _______________/s/________________________ 19 Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
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.
