Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03524/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03524-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IAN HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OHIO INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-03524 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JANUARY 4, 2008, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit

the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their

reliance on such authority. 

The Court tentatively grants in part and denies in part the motion for summary

judgment filed by defendant Ohio Indemnity Company (“Ohio Indemnity”). The parties each

shall have fifteen (15) minutes to address the following questions:

Case 3:06-cv-03524-JSW Document 93 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

(1) Based on additional reports run in September 2007, Plaintiff Ian Hunter, Ph.D, as

the Chair of the Trustees of the Unemployment Insurance Trust (“Trust”)

contends that it is owed an additional $140,113 under the 2002 policy, bringing

the total claim to $468,325, and an additional $221,904 under the 2003 policy. 

(See Declaration of Frances McCutchon (“McCutchon Decl.”), ¶¶ 11-13;

Declaration of Holly Smith Jones (“Smith Jones Decl.”), Ex. 57.)

(a) The Trust contends that the claim under the 2003 policy should be

increased from $3,723,151 to $3,971,428. However the difference

between $3,723,151 and $3,971,428 is $248,277. What is the amount the

Trust contends is owed under the 2003 policy - $3,945,055 (based on an

additional $221,904) or $3,971,428 (based on an additional $248,277)?

(b) What is Ohio Indemnity’s position regarding these additional amounts

sought by the Trust?

(2) What is the amount of the Trust’s claim under the 2003 policy that was billed in

2002? Ohio Indemnity contends it is $938,685 (Rev. Mot. at 3) and the Trust

contends it is $805,754 (Opp. at 7)? On what evidence in the record do the

parties rely for their respective positions?

(3) Where is Ohio Indemnity incorporated and where is its principal place of

business? Does the Trust dispute that at least one of these locations are in Ohio?

(4) Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: January 3, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03524-JSW Document 93 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 2