Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02311/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02311-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Zurich Insurance Company
Defendant
JC Produce, LLC
Plaintiff
James Lennane
Plaintiff

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

OF DEFENDANT ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

JAMES LENNANE, an Individual, and JC 

PRODUCE, LLC, a California limited liability 

company, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE 

COMPANY, an Illinois corporation; and 

DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

 CASE NO. 2:13-CV-02311-JAM-AC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF 

DEFENDANT ZURICH AMERICAN 

INSURANCE COMPANY 

On July 29, 2015, the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Zurich American 

Insurance Company (“Zurich”) came on regularly for a hearing, the Honorable John A. Mendez 

presiding. After considering all the pleadings, evidence, objections, and oral argument offered, the 

Court grants the motion in its entirety in favor of defendant Zurich and against plaintiffs James 

Lennane and JC Produce, LLC, for the factual and legal reasons set forth by the Court on the 

record at the time of the hearing. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 

1. Plaintiffs’ opposition brief to Zurich’s motion was filed late. The Court, however, 

will consider the brief on the merits. In light of the late filing, plaintiffs’ counsel is not entitled to 

Case 2:13-cv-02311-JAM-AC Document 55 Filed 08/05/15 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-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

OF DEFENDANT ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY 

be heard in opposition to the motion at oral argument in accordance with Local Rule 230(c), but is 

permitted to answer questions presented by the Court. 

2. Zurich’s notice of motion is not defective. The Court, therefore, rejects plaintiffs’ 

argument that the motion should be denied because of defects in the notice. 

3. Zurich’s evidentiary objections are premature and, therefore, overruled. 

4. Summary judgment is granted on plaintiff James Lennane remaining claims for (a) 

breach of contract, (b) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (c) unfair 

business practices, and (d) conversion. Mr. Lennane is neither a party nor a beneficiary under the 

Zurich insurance policy at issue in this matter and, therefore, lacks standing to maintain an action 

against Zurich. 

5. Summary judgment is granted on plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the implied 

covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Zurich’s purported negligence in the handling of the 

Hugo Arreola claim is insufficient to constitute unreasonable behavior for the purpose of 

establishing a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

6. Summary judgment is granted on plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. Plaintiffs 

failed to present clear and convincing evidence of conduct by Zurich constituting malice 

oppression or fraud in connection with its handling of the Arreola claim or that any such conduct 

was ratified by a corporate officer, director or managing agent of Zurich. 

Dated: 8/4/2015 

 /s/ John A. Mendez____________________ 

 The Honorable John A. Mendez 

 United States District Court Judge 

 

Case 2:13-cv-02311-JAM-AC Document 55 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 2