Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01410/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01410-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

KYLE MATTHEW FISCHER aka KYLE

SIMMONS; MICHAEL FISCHER aka

MICHAEL SIMMONS; KELLY SIMMONS;

JASON SIMMONS; JOHN ROE, a

minor, by and through his

guardian ad litem, SHEILA IRENE

CALLAHAN; JOHN ROE, a minor, by

and through his guardian ad

litem, BRENDA TEIXEIRA and DOES

1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-1410 OWW DLB

ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE 

Last Day to File Motion for

Summary Judgment: 1/18/08

Further Status

Conference: 2/15/08 8:15

Ctrm. 3

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

January 17, 2008.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Drath, Clifford, Murphy & Hagen, LLP by Sarah F. Burke,

Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

 Allen, Polgar, Proietti & Falgade by Donald J. Proietti,

Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant John Roe, a minor, by and

through his guardian ad litem, Sheila Irene Callahan. 

Case 1:07-cv-01410-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 5
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

Donald C. Chavous, M.D., J.D., appeared on behalf of

Defendant John Roe, a minor, by and through his guardian ad

litem, Brenda Teixeira. 

Kelly Simmons appeared in pro se. 

III. Status of Case. 

1. The parties generally agree that the issues in dispute

in this action are legal in nature.

2. Plaintiff Amica contends it has no duty to defend or

indemnify Defendants Simmons in the underlying litigation, as set

forth in Plaintiff’s complaint filed September 26, 2007. 

3. Defendants’ contentions are specifically set forth in

their answers filed with the Court. 

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not anticipate amending their pleadings

at this time. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Amica Mutual Insurance Company is a homeowners and

property casualty insurer licensed to do business in the State of

California at all times relevant. 

2. Kyle Matthew Fischer aka Kyle Matthew Simmons is

an adult. 

3. Michael Fischer aka Michael Simmons is an adult.

4. Kelly Simmons is the mother of Kyle and Michael.

5. Jason Simmons is an adult resident of the Eastern

District of California. He is not the biological father of Kyle

or Michael.

Case 1:07-cv-01410-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 5
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

3

6. Sheila Irene Callahan is the duly appointed and

acting guardian ad litem for John Roe. 

7. Brenda Teixeira is the duly appointed and acting

guardian ad litem for John Roe. 

8. The Roe Defendants have filed separate lawsuits in

the United States District Court, Eastern District of California

(John Roe, et al., v. Gustine Unified School District, et al.,

USDC Case No. 1:07-cv-0796 OWW DLB) as well as underlying

litigation filed in the Superior Court of the State of

California, County of Madera (Brenda Teixeira, et al., v. Gustine

Unified School District, et al., Madera County Superior Court

Case No. MCV037071). Both cases involve the same basic

allegations: at a football camp held July 13-16, 2006, it is

alleged that older boys, including minors Kyle and Michael

Simmons (sons of Kelly and Jason Simmons) assaulted younger boys

sexually and otherwise, as caused or contributed to, in whole or

in part, by Kelly and Jason Simmons’ negligent supervision of

their sons.

9. Amica provided homeowners insurance coverage to

named insureds Kelly and Jason Simmons in accordance with policy

number 670204-1185, for the period February 27, 2006, to February

27, 2007. The policy was canceled for non-payment of premium on

July 11, 2006. On July 28, 2006, new homeowners (policy 670704-

1312) and auto policies were issued, for effective dates

7/28/2006-7/28/2007. Amica policy numbers 670204-1185 and

670704-1312 afforded homeowners property and liability insurance

coverage in accordance with coverage from H0 00 03 10 00, subject

to other provisions and endorsements of the policy.

Case 1:07-cv-01410-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4

10. Amica issued an umbrella liability policy, number

770204-1045, to Kelly and Jason Simmons for the period February

27, 2006 to February 27, 2007. The policy was canceled for nonpayment of premium on August 30, 2006. The coverage form is form

DL 98 01 06 98.

11. Coverage for the acts or omissions alleged to have

been committed by the Simmons Defendants is a legal issue to be

determined by the Court. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. There appear to be no relevant contested facts. 

All disputes relate to issues of law. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1392 as the

policy was issued, the contract formed and to be performed in the

Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California.

3. In this diversity action, the parties agree that

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

of decision. 

B. Contested. 

1. Whether there is a duty to defend or indemnify

Defendants Simmons in the underlying lawsuits. 

2. Whether the pending declaratory relief action

should be stayed pending resolution of the underlying actions.

3. The insurer intends to file a motion for summary

adjudication and opposes any stay of the litigation. Defendants

seek to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the underlying

Case 1:07-cv-01410-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 01/17/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

case. 

4. Defendants shall have through and including

February 1, 2008, to determine what information is necessary to

respond to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The motion

for summary judgment shall be filed and copies delivered to

Defendants on or before January 18, 2008. 

5. If the parties are able to agree on a briefing

schedule for Plaintiff’s summary adjudication motion, that

schedule will be adopted upon stipulation and order of the Court. 

If the parties are unable to agree on a schedule for the hearing

of the summary judgment motion by virtue of the need to conduct

discovery, a further Status Conference shall be held in this case

on February 15, 2008, at 8:15 a.m. All parties are authorized to

appear telephonically at the next Status Conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01410-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 01/17/08 Page 5 of 5