Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01211/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01211-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

----oo0oo----

PET FOOD EXPRESS LTD., a 

California corporation, on 

behalf of itself and all 

those similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC.; 

APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE 

RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; 

CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, 

INC.; and DOES 1 through 50 

inclusive;

Defendants.

CIV. NO. 2:16-1211 WBS AC

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

----oo0oo----

Defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims “to 

the extent that they seek to void [defendants’ Reinsurance 

Payment Agreement] on the theory that the RPA should have been 

filed” with the California Department of Insurance before being 

used. (Defs.’ Mot., Mem. (“Defs.’ Mem.”) at iv (Docket No. 15).) 

Defendants argue that use of an unfiled insurance rate is not 

unlawful under California Insurance Code section 11735. (See id.

Case 2:16-cv-01211-WBS-AC Document 35 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 2
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

at 8.) 

In response, plaintiff points out that it does not rely 

in its Complaint on section 11735. (See Pl.’s Opp’n at 5 (Docket 

No. 26).) Although there was some discussion at oral argument 

about whether plaintiff could rely upon the failure to file a 

form pursuant to section 11658, upon reviewing the record the 

court notes that section was not part of plaintiff’s motion, 

Accordingly, the court will deny defendants’ motion with respect 

to section 11735 as moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to 

dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint to the extent the Complaint relies 

upon California Insurance Code section 11735 be, and the same 

hereby is, DENIED AS MOOT because plaintiff does not rely upon 

that section.

Dated: October 18, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01211-WBS-AC Document 35 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 2