Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01259/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01259-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allstate Insurance Company
Plaintiff
Janet Jacob
Defendant
Nardin Jacob
Defendant

Document Text:

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

)

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

NARDIN JACOB, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:07cv1259 OWW DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Document 15)

Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) filed the instant motion for default

judgment on January 29, 2008. The motion was heard on February 29, 2008, before the

Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Brandon Fish appeared on behalf of

Allstate. Defendants Nardin Jacob and Janet Jacob (“Defendants”) did not appear. The motion

was referred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Allstate filed this action for declaratory relief (28 U.S.C. § 2201(a)) on August 30, 2007. 

Allstate names Defendants Nardin and Janet Jacob (“Defendants”). Allstate seeks a declaration

that the Deluxe Homeowners Policy No. 099811015 issued by Allstate to Nardin Jacob does not

provide coverage for the liability or potential liability of Nardin Jacob for any damages or

injuries resulting from the death of Martin Jacob and that the Allstate policy does not require

Allstate to defend or indemnify Nardin Jacob or to pay for any judgment obtained by Janet Jacob

Case 1:07-cv-01259-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 4
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

either individually or as a representative of the Estate of Martin Jacob, or to pay any medical

payments arising out of the injuries to or death of Martin Jacob. Allstate also seeks costs of suit.

Allstate filed the instant motion for default judgment on January 29, 2008. Defendants

were served with the motion but have failed to respond or otherwise communicate with the

Court.

DISCUSSION

Allstate moves for entry of default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

55(b)(2), which provides that judgment may be entered:

By the Court. In all other cases the party entitled to a judgment by default

shall apply to the court therefor; but no judgment by default shall be entered

against an infant or incompetent person unless represented in the action by a

general guardian, committee, conservator, or other such representative who has

appeared therein. If the party against whom judgment by default is sought has

appeared in the action, the party (or, if appearing by representative, the party's

representative) shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment

at least 3 days prior to the hearing on such application. If, in order to enable the

court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account

or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment

by evidence or to make an investigation of any other matter, the court may

conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper

and shall accord a right of trial by jury to the parties when and as required by any

statute of the United States.

“Upon default, the well pleaded allegations of the complaint relating to liability are taken

as true.” Dundee Cement Co. v. Highway Pipe and Concrete Products, 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th

Cir. 1983); Televideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, “[a]t

the time of entry of default, the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the complaint are deemed

admitted.” 10 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice §55.11 (3d ed. 2000). 

Factors which may be considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the entry of a

default judgment include: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of

plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in

the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was

due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th

Cir. 1986).

Case 1:07-cv-01259-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 4
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

According to the complaint, Allstate issued the homeowners policy to Nardin Jacob

insuring a residence located at 261 Dels Lane in Turlock, California. Allstate contends Nardin

lived at the residence with his brother, Martin Jacob. On December 8, 2006, a fire occurred at

the residence and Martin Jacob sustained fatal injuries. Janet Jacob tendered a claim to Allstate

for benefits under the policy.

Allstate contends the policy does not provide coverage for the liability or potential

liability of Nardin for injuries to or the death of Martin Jacob because any claims against him for

the wrongful death of Martin or related medical or funeral expenses are excluded from coverage. 

Allstate contends Martin is an “insured person” and the policy excludes coverage for “bodily

injury” to an “insured person.” Allstate therefore contends there is no duty to defend or

indemnify Nardin for any claims arising out of the injuries or death of Martin Jacob nor is there

any duty on the part of Allstate to provide indemnity. 

The “insured person” exclusion is a valid exclusion under California law. See Safeco Ins.

Co. v. Parks, 122 Cal.App.4th 779 (2000); Mitroff v. United Services Auto. Assn., 72 Cal.App. 4th

1230 (1999).

Defendants were served with the complaint on September 23, 2007. The Clerk entered

default on December 28, 2007. Counsel for Allstate indicates that he had telephone

conversations with Janet Jacob regarding this action on December 27, 2007 and January 7, 2008. 

Fish Dec. ¶ 7. He advised her that Allstate intended to request the Court enter a default judgment

against her and Nardin Jacob. Id. Ms. Jacob indicated to counsel that she did not intend to

defend herself against the allegations in the Complaint. Id. Counsel indicates that Nardin Jacob

has not otherwise contacted Allstate. Fish Dec. ¶ 8. 

Defendants are not infants or incompetent persons, and are not in the military service or

otherwise exempted under the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940. App., p.1. 

Having read and considered the declarations, pleadings and exhibits to the present

motion, including the policy at issue, the Court finds that Allstate is entitled to the declaration

requested, as well as costs of suit.

Case 1:07-cv-01259-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 4
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

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court RECOMMENDS to:

1. GRANT Allstate’s motion for default judgment in favor of Allstate and against

Defendants;

2. Enter judgment declaring that the Deluxe Homeowners Policy No. 099811015

issued by Allstate to Nardin Jacob does not provide coverage for the liability or

potential liability of Nardin Jacob for any damages or injuries resulting from the

death of Martin Jacob and that the Allstate policy does not require Allstate to

defend or indemnify Nardin Jacob or to pay for any judgment obtained by Janet

Jacob either individually or as a representative of the Estate of Martin Jacob, or to

pay any medical payments arising out of the injuries to or death of Martin Jacob;

and 

4. AWARD costs incurred in this suit to Allstate.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B)

and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern

District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will

then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 3, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01259-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/03/08 Page 4 of 4