Case ID: f-appx_305/html/0357-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, a Maryland corporation; Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company; St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance; St. Paul Medical Liability Insurance Company, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Joseph Anthony GUGLIELMO, Defendant—Appellant, and The Scott Companies Inc.; Scott Co. of California; WTE Inc.; Scott Mechanical International Inc.; Scott-Norman Mechanical, Inc.; Richard William Davis; Robert Nurisso, Defendants. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, a Maryland corporation; Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company; St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance; St. Paul Medical Liability Insurance Company, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Joseph Anthony Guglielmo, Defendant—Appellant, and The Scott Companies Inc.; Scott Co. of California; WTE Inc.; Scott Mechanical International Inc.; Scott-Norman Mechanical, Inc.; Richard William Davis; Robert Nurisso, Defendants. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, a Maryland corporation; Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company; St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance; St. Paul Medical Liability Insurance Company, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Joseph Anthony Guglielmo; The Scott Companies Inc.; Scott Co. of California; WTE, Inc.; Scott Mechanical International Inc.; Scott-Norman Mechanical, Inc.; Richard William Davis, Defendants, and Robert Nurisso, Defendant—Appellant. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, a Maryland corporation; Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company; St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance; St. Paul Medical Liability Insurance Company, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Joseph Anthony Guglielmo; The Scott Companies Inc.; Scott Co. of California; WTE, Inc.; Scott Mechanical International Inc.; Scott-Norman Mechanical, Inc.; Richard William Davis, Defendants, and Robert Nurisso, Defendant—Appellant.
    Nos. 07-16072, 07-16927, 07-16073, 07-16926.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 12, 2008.
    Michael G. Long, Esq., Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP, Irvine, CA,
    
      David R. Johnson, Esq., Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Richard W. Miller, Esq., Miller Law Firm, P.C., Kansas City, MO, David M. Wiseblood, Esq., Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant/Defendants.
    Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court’s orders granting appellees judgment and attorneys’ fees are affirmed, for the reasons provided by the district court.

In light of our disposition of these consolidated appeals, appellees’ motions to strike are denied as moot. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.