-JLT Maryland Casualty Company v. Gonzalez et al, No. 1:2010cv02242 - Document 74 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING Plainitff's Motion for Summary Judgment In Part and DENYING Plainiff's Motion for Judgment In Part as set forth in 66 Memorandum, Opinion & Order, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/07/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
-JLT Maryland Casualty Company v. Gonzalez et al Doc. 74 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) OLGA GOMZALEZ, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) 1:10-2242 AWI JLT ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT IN PART AS SET FORTH IN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OLIVER W. WANGER’S AUGUST 19, 2011 ORDER 14 15 On August 19, 2011, District Court Judge Oliver W. Wanger issued a memorandum 16 decision regarding Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 17 as follows: 18 19 20 Judge Wanger’s order concluded For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to the absence of coverage for G & Company, Inc.; 2) The balance of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and 3) Defendant shall submit a form of order consistent with this memorandum decision within five days of electronic service of this decision. 21 22 (August 19, 2011 Order, CM/ECF #66). 23 order on September 9, 2011. Due to administrative error, this order was never signed by Judge 24 Wanger. 25 26 27 28 Pursuant to this order, Defendants filed a proposed On September 14, 2011, this action was re-assigned in light of Judge Wanger’s impending retirement. This action was assigned to the undersigned on September 27, 2011. The court has reviewed this action and Judge Wanger’s August 19, 2011 order. The court has determined that it was clearly Judge Wanger’s intent to resolve the motion for Dockets.Justia.com 1 summary judgment as stated at the end of his August 19, 2011 order. However, the request for 2 a proposed order on the motion, the failure to sign any proposed order, and multiple re- 3 assignments appears to have created confusion regarding the opperative date of the August 19, 4 2011 order. As such, the court will make the August 19, 2011 order final pending service of 5 this order. 6 Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is 7 GRANTED with respect to the absence of coverage for G & Company, Inc. and DENIED in all 8 other respects for the reasons set forth in Judge Wanger’s August 19, 2011 order. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: 0m8i78 October 7, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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.