Free Memorandum in Opposition - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cv-00555-RS

Document 36

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 1 of 6

F. 1 Stephen Yunker(CSB 110159)
,
J

4
J

YIINKER & SCHNEIDER 655 West Broadway,Suite 1400 SanDiego,Califomia92101 (619)233-5500 Telephone: (61 Facsirnile: 9) 233-5535 F-ail: [email protected]

Joseph Kravec,Jr. @A ID No. 68992) N. (Arlrnitt4 pro 7* *a SPECTEREVANS 6 SPECTER &MANOGUE,P.C. 7 The 26d Floor KoppersBuilding Pittsburgb,Pernsylvania 152L9 (412) 642-2300 I Telephone: Facsimile: (412) U2-2309 9 Email jsk(@Esemeelq (Admittdpro hac vice) 1 1 PIETZI,AWOFFICE MtchellBuilding t2 304 RossSteet, Suite700 I Pittsburgfi,Pennsylvania 52I 9 (412) 2884333 1 3 Telephone: (412)2884334 Facsimile: 1A Email: jpi@@jpietzler*'CSlS

l 0 James Pietz (PA ID No. 55406) M.

1 5 Attomera for PlaintitrMCIIELLE T. WAHL" 16 L7 18 19
MICHELLE T. WAI{L, onbehalfof on behalf of herselfandall otherssimilarlv sitirated TJI\IITEDSTATES DTSTRICT COT]RT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFOR}IIA. SAN JOSE DTYISION CASE NO.: C 08-00555RS CLASSACTION Plaintifl PLAINTIF'F'S RESPONSETO DEXENIIAI\ITSO NOTICE OF FILING OX' COMPLETE B)(HIBITD INSIJPPORI OF ITSMOTION TO DISMISS DEMAND T'ORJURYTRIAL Defendants. Eearing Date: Time: Courtroom:

20 herseifandall othe6 similarly situated, 2l 22 23 AMERICAN SECURITYINSURANCE 24 25 26 27 28
COMPANY; andDOES 1-50,inclusivq

May21,2008
9:30 a"m, 4

C!6e No.! C m{N}555 Rs PlahdfPa RdDorse Defend!|tts' Nottc of F ltrg of Completc Erhlblt D ltr SEpport of I1r Motlo! to Dlsd6s to

Case 5:08-cv-00555-RS

Document 36

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 2 of 6

I

American In its Motion to DismissPlaintiffs First AmendedComplaint CTAC'), Defendant that when Plaintift' lender,EMC, took out the ASIC Coqany ("ASIC") argues SecuriryInsurance

3

a:rd policy insuringis intrestin Plaintiffs homethat this act cancelled ttruswaivedEMC's coverage from Farme$ hsurance Bndorsement underthe lrndff's LossPayable C'LLPB) Plaintiffpurchased

.l

LLPE voidedASIC policy provisions that EMC's waiver of the Farmers Conrpany.ASIC alsoargues tle the tlat automarically cancel policyaadrequire refundofpremiumpaidwhenthereis otherinsurance protectingthe lender'sinteret.

6

8
9

tlat Plaintiffshowedaf oral argument in herSur-Reply evenifASIC's view ofthe Farme$' and provisionis correct- whichit is notr - a waivercannotlegallyoccurwithorrt N ac.t. LLPE cancellafion tle Here,the lender,EMC, did not actto obtainanyinsurance until Maxch4, 2006,some5 weeksa.fter LLPE took effecton January ,2006. ,leeFAC, Exh. D; Plaintif s Sw-Reply(DocketNo. 27 Farmers

l0

1 2 31), pp. 3-4. ASIC may haveback-dated coverage beginon Januaryn,2006, but thal doa not to 1 3 change frct that the ASIC coverage trot taken out by BMC until March4,2006. Id. kstee{' was the coverage 1 4 it showstlaf from at leastJanuary 2006to March4, 2006therewasovedapping 27, between the Farme$LLPE andtheASlCpohcy. Id. Undertheprovisionsofthe ASIC poliry, this ovolapping
lo

qused theASIC poliry to cancelautomatically its inceptionandrequiredASIC to refird coverage at

t 7 the premiumsPlaintifrpaid. This is tle basisof Plaintiffs clains. Id.
18
that Bxilibit D to theFAC whichis a two-page For tle first time at oral argument, ASIC argued

t 9 letter from EMC to Plaintiffwasincomplete missinga third page ASIC contetrds . sinceit wasallegedly 2A tbat third pageis a copy of anASIC temporaryinsurancebinderrefenedto in tle EMC letter. The 21, 22
z5

24 25
zo

27 28

t As dernonshaled Plaintifs Response (DocketNo .27) at pages13-14, Farrners' in the LLPE requires cancellationto occur in accordance with the otherprovisions of the LLPE. The otler provisiors of tle IJ,,PErcqnre a 60 daywaiting period beforeFarmas canseld a carcelTaJion nofice poliry to to the lenderandthe lenderhasan additional10 daysthereafter decideto keeptle Farrners' before coveragefor the lenderterminatesunder the LLPE. ASIC asksthis Court to ipore these provisionsandthereforeto rendertlemmeaningless, which the Court maynot do. F&II Construction if v. ITT HartfordIns. Co. Of Midwesr,118CalApp. 4h 364,371,376-77 Q004). Thus,eve'n EMC LLPE coverage begarg waiver out the ASIC coverage January on 27,2006 vhenthe Farmers no took LLPE continued insurmcefor at least70 days occurredbecause provisiorsofthe Farmers thereafter. tle resuhis overlapping corerageduringthatperiod,whichinitiatedthe automatic cancellation and Theend premiumreflmd provisionsofthe ASIC policy. Plaintiffs Response Brief, pp.13-14.
1 CassNo.r C t)&40S55RS PhldtlFs R''poDro to Defodllnts' Noic6 of FlhS of Coqrleto f,,ihlbit D h $pport of Il! Modon to Db$bs

Case 5:08-cv-00555-RS

Document 36

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 3 of 6

I

is which it did (seeDocketNo. 35) Court directedASIC to file the Erfribit D it contends "conqplete" andaffordedPlaintiffthis opportunityto file this response.

.l

judicial notice of the full text a It is well-established "[o]n considering motion to dismiss, that in wherelhe aathenticily of thosedncumentsis not contesteil, of documents refrnced a conrplaint, is proper under tle doctrine of incorporationby refoence. In re Zoran Corporation Deivative (N.D.Ca 2007),citingNo. Employee-TeamsterJoint 84 Council Litigation,S'll F.Supp.2d986, 1001 n-2 added). PensionTrust Fundv.Am. W.Holding Corp.,320F.3d92A,o25 (9frCir. 20O3)(errphasis

4 5 6

8 9

to Here,the partiesdo not contesttie autlenticity ofthe two pagesof Exhibit D attached the

they may properly be corsideredby the Court in resolvingthe Motion to FAC, and consequently by 1 0 Dismiss.However,the authenticityof ASIC's purported'lthird page"binderis contested Plaintiff 1l it by Because authenticity ofthis "tlird page"binderis contested, maynot be considered the Court t.he

1 2 in resolvingASIC's Motion to Dismiss. .Id. 73 the ofthis purpodedthird page.Indeed" Plaintiffhasgoodgroundsfor questioning autheriticity

14 ASIC offels no swom satementattesting that its purported'lhird page"wasactuallypart ofthe EMC
ll

in ASIC leter to Plaintiffcontained ExtibfuD, or tlat it is otherwise rue andcomplete copy. Instead" a

Exhibit D In 1 6 simplyargues point in its latestbrief. SeeDefendatrt's that Notice of Filing of Conrylete

1 7 Supportof Its Motion to Dismiss(Dockei No. 3s)(T.{otice).
1R

of of Moreover,a fair readingofthe first two pages Exhibit D callsinto douhrt authenticity the

t9 the alleged"third page" andcreates sipificant frctual questions that carnot be resolvedon a motion 20 to dismiss. The first two pagesof Exhibit D containedin the FAC andASIC's profferedcomplete
ZI

Exhibit D arethe same. Thosetwo pagesaxea letter ftom EMC to Plaintiff datedApril 3, 2006 in

22 which EMC statestfiaf it obtaineda 60 dayteryorary insurance binda 30 dala eerlier(i.e., otMarch
z)
1t t<

4,2006) thal is to e4pirein 30 days(i.e., on May 3, 2006). Conpare FAC, Bxhibit D andNotics Exhibit 1. However,the EMC letter doesnot statethat tle ternporaryinsurance binderwas attached qrith the lextcr. Id. to or enclosed period Furthermore, binderASIC purportsto offer in its Notice statesa differentcoverage the which calls into question than the period statedin the EMC letter to which it i,sallegedly attached,

26
an

28 whetler this is the binder refffmced by the EMC letter. SeeNotice, E>rh.I thereto. But, mote
Car6 No.! c (l8i0555 RS PlsjntFs Rirpols to DofoBdanb' Nouco ofF ltrg of Co!1pl6t6Exbibtt D in SElrport ofltB ModoE to DbEt$i

2

Case 5:08-cv-00555-RS

Document 36

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 4 of 6

I
1 5

this irryortaotly for the waiverargument, purportedbinderdoesnot saywhenit was artuallytakenout by EMC. Id. lt certainlycouldhavebsentaken out on March 4, 2006 asthe two-pageEMC letter psriod from January , 2O06tfuoughMarch 28, 2006. 27 for indicates thenback-dated a coverage and this Alternativeh it could be XhaJ binderwas actuallytaken out w Jnvary 27,2006 asASIC urges, or it could be that this bitrdsr is not actually tle binder mentionedin the two-pageletter. Anotlo question from the dxe "04/A312006" appmrsin the upperright bandcomerof tlat arises unanswered period of Jmlrary27,2006 to March this purportedbinder,which is after the stded bindercoverage t-he 28,2006. It couldbetlat thebinderwastakenout onApnl 3, 2006andthsnback-daJed coverage, or simplybe the datethe binderwasprinted. axe Suchcorryetingfactualioterpretafions not to be resolvedon a motion to tlismiss.Indeed asthe Ninth Circuit recentlyacknowledged"the motion [to dismiss]is not a procedurefor resolving between partiesabouttle factsor tle substntive merits of the plaintiffs case." Willians the a contest v. GerberProdutts Company,523F.3d934,938 (96 Cir. 2a08),quoting 5 C. Sfright & A Miller, Federal PracticeandProcedure 1356. Ralher,this Court mrst acceptthe allegatiolsofthe cornplaint $ to irferences themandanyreasonable therefrominthe light mostfavorable plaintitr asfue md construe

4
) o

7 8 9 10 1I t2 l3 l4 l5

if 1 6 to determine shehasstajedfacts makingher claim for relief plausibleon its face. Id., a|937-938
11

(citationsomitted). inference EMC did not take ttrat Applying this standard ExhfoitD, it is certainlya reasonable to

18

1.9 out anycoverage with ASIC until well-afterJmuary2?, 2006,whichis the effectivedateofthe Farmers LLPE coverage taking out substitute by tlat 20 LLPE. Thus,ASIC's defe'nse EMC waivedthe Farmers 27,2006 cannotbe established a motion to dismiss.ASIC may argue on 2 1 ASIC coverage Januaty or '"rhirdpagd' aad ofE*ibit D based its u:rauthenticated otherwisedubious on 22 a differentinterpretation presents merefactualissuethat cannotberesolvedon a motionto dismiss. 23 binder,but that argument a
a)l

Plaintiffrespectfullyrequests ASIC's Motion to Dismissbe denied. tlat Dated:May 28, 2008 SPECTER SPECTTR EYANS &MANOGIm,P.C. By VJosepb Kravec.Jr. N. N. Joseph Kravec,Jr. (Pa-I.D. #68992)

25 26
)'7

28

3 Csro No., C 08-00555RIi Plalndfs Rnqrotr3dto Defonddtr' NotLo ofFfltog ofcomploto Eridbit D h fuppon offtr Motlonlo Dbdtt

Case 5:08-cv-00555-RS

Document 36

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
o

The 260 Floor, KoppersNuilding Pittsburg\PA 15219 (4 00 Telephone: 12) 642-23 (412) 642-2309 Facsimile: jnk6_i.tsss.m. F-mail: com M. James Pietz(PA ID No. 55406) PIETZl,A,WOFFICE Mitchell Building 304RossStreet, Suite700 PA Pittsburgb, 15219 Telephone:(412) 2884333 Facsirmle: (412) 2884334 com Emai: ioiarf;),ipietziaw. SteveYunker, Esquire YUNKER& SCHNEIDER 655 WestBroadway,Suite 1400 SanDiego,CA 92101 (619)233-5500 Telephone: Facsimile: (6'19)233-5535 SFYt?)yslaw.com ATTORNEYS F OR PLAINTI F F

10 l1 t2

t3 t4
l)

16 1.7 18 19 20 2l 22 23
)A

25 26 27 28

4 C!s6No,r c 0&00555RS Plslntf! Rt3poDroto Defontlturh' Nodco of I'tlng of Cotnplio Drbibtt D in SEpport of Its Motion to DtcEftr

Case 5:08-cv-00555-RS

Document 36

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 6 of 6

I STATEOFPENNSYLVANIA COT'NTYOFALLEGHENY 4 5 6

PROOFOFSERVICE ) )ss.: )

I ame,nployed thecountyofAllegbenn Commonwealth Pennsylvani4 amovertheageof in of I 18andnot apafiyto thewithin action;mybusiness address The26' FloorKoppers is Building,Pittsburgb, Pennsylvania 15219. On May 28,2008,usingtheNorthern Dishiot of Califomia'sElectonic Case Filing Systrqwith theECFID registered Joseph Kravec,Jr., I filed aadserved docunen(s) desoribed to N. fhe as: PLAINTIFT9S RESFONSETO DEFENDAI\TTS'NOTICE OF FILING OF COMPLETE E)(HIBIT D IN SUPPORT OF'ITS MOTION TO DISMISS

R

genemte e-mailmessage all parties thecase, TheECFSystem designed automatically is to an to in qruteo:, this case, partiesserved as which constitutes service.Aocording the ECF/PACER to for the are 10 follows:
v

1 1 Joseph Kravec,Jr., Esq. N.
1,)

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

James Pie@Esq.

1 3 Ste,phen Francis Yunks, Esq. 1 4 Attorneys for Plalntiff
t(

Fra::kG. Bur! Esq.

fgb@iordenusa-com [email protected] [email protected]

l 6 DeniseA Fee,Esq. l 7 PeterS.Hecker,Esq. l 8 Ama S.Mcl-eaq Bsq. 19 2A 2l 22
DawnB. Wiliams, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant

Peter.Hecker@hellsrehmancom [email protected]

23 tle service made. was 24 25 26 27 28

I declare I amemployed the office of a m,rrber tlat in ofthe bar of this Courtat whosed:ireotion

I firther declare underpenaltyofperjury undertie lawsoffhe UnitedStates tle above true that is andcorreot Executed May 28,2008,at Pittsburgb, on Pennsylvania 15219. ISIMARCIAZ. CARNEY MarciaZCaney

C!'3NG, C oB{Xtst3IS Plalntlffr Respolle to Defedstrts, Not.e of Flltrg of CoEpkie Erhlbft D ln ftpport of It! Modo! to lrl@lsg