IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

HORACE MANN INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRIET TRAN, ROY SEO, and YUNJU KANG, 

Defendants. 

PAP AK, Magistrate Judge: 

3: l 5-CV-164-PK 

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff Horace Mann Insurance Company ("Horace Mann") filed this action against Yen 

Thi Ngo, Tuan Do, Trant Le, Phu Le, Thy Nguyen, Triet Tran, Viah Hoang, Roy Seo, Yunju 

Kang, Tien Hum Nguyen, and Hoang Le. Horace Mann amended its complaint effective March 

12, 2015, dropping Tien Hum Nguyen as a defendant and clarifying that Viah Hoang and Hoang 

Le were alternate appellations for the same individual. Horace Mann amended its complaint a 

second time effective April 30, 2015, adding Vinh Hoang as an additional defendant. By and 

through its second amended complaint, Horace Mann alleged that on September 16, 2014, Ngo 

initiated contact with Horace Mann for the purpose of obtaining automobile insurance in her 

name for a motor vehicle she claimed to own (the "subject vehicle") and which she claimed she 

would register in her name the following day. Horace Mann further alleged that on September 

Page 1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00164-PK Document 63 Filed 03/30/16 Page 1 of 5
17, 2014, Horace Mann sent Ngo an application for automobile insurance for the subject vehicle, 

requesting that Ngo return the application with her signature by October 1, 2014, in order to 

complete the application process. Horace Mann fmiher alleged that on September 20, 2014, the 

subject vehicle was involved in a collision with another vehicle (the "other vehicle") in 

Washington State, that at the time the collision occurred the subject vehicle was being driven by 

Do (who has never been a member ofNgo's household) with Trant Le, Phu Le, Nguyen, Tran, 

and Hoang Le as passengers, and that at the time the collision occurred the other vehicle was 

being driven by Seo with Kang as a passenger. Horace Mann further alleged that on October 7, 

2014, Ngo provided a recorded statement to Horace Mann stating that at all material times the 

subject vehicle belonged to Hoang Le, that Ngo had borrowed the subject vehicle from Hoang 

Le, and that she had sought to insure the subject vehicle in her own name because Hoang Le 

lacked automobile insurance covering the subject vehicle. 1 Arising out of the foregoing, Horace 

Mann sought by and through its second amended complaint this comi's declaration that Horace 

Mann was entitled to rescind its insurance contract, if any, with Ngo, that Horace Mann was 

under no obligation to issue benefits under that policy, and that Horace Mann had no duty to 

defend or indemnify Ngo in connection with the collision of September 20, 2014. Horace Mann 

asserted by and through its second amended complaint that this court could properly exercise 

subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, based on the complete 

diversity of the patties and the amount in controversy. 

1 Horace Mann's second amended complaint does not allege that Vinh Hoang played any 

role in the complained of conduct, and, although it contains the allegation that Vinh Hoang was 

"made a patiy because Defendant [Vinh Hoang] may have aninterest in the declaratory relief 

sought in this action," it does not suggest the existence of any factual basis on which Vinh Hoang 

might assert such an interest. 

Page 2 - FlNDlNGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00164-PK Document 63 Filed 03/30/16 Page 2 of 5
On July 27, 2015, Horace Maun moved for entty of default judgment against Ngo, Do, 

Trant Le, Phu Le, Nguyen, Tran, and Hoang Le, on the grounds that each of those defendants had 

been properly served, but that each had failed to answer Horace Mann's complaint or make any 

other appearance within the time allowed for so doing. On July 28, 2015, I granted Horace 

Mann's motion for entty of default judgment as to defendants Ngo, Do, Trant Le, Phu Le, 

Nguyen, and Hoang Le, but inadvertently omitted to grant the motion as to defendant Tran. On 

September 3, 2015, Judge Brown accordingly issued a limited default judgment as to defendants 

Ngo, Do, Trant Le, Phu Le, Nguyen, and Hoang Le, declaring that Horace Maun was entitled to 

rescind its insurance contract with Ngo, had no obligation to issue benefits under that policy to 

any of defendants Ngo, Do, Trant Le, Phu Le, Nguyen, or Hoang Le, and had no duty to defend 

or indemnify Ngo in connection with the collision of September 20, 2014. 

On September 11, 2015, Horace Maun moved for entty of default judgment against Vinh 

Hoang on the grounds that Vinh Hoang had been properly served but had failed to answer Horace 

Nlaun's complaint or make any other appearance within the time allowed for so doing. On July 

28, 2015, I granted Horace Mann's motion for entty of default judgment as to Vinh Hoang, and 

on October 27, 2015, Judge Brown accordingly issued a limited default judgment as to Vinh 

Hoang, declaring that Horace Mann had no obligation to issue benefits under its insurance 

contract with Ngo to Vinh Hoang. 

Now before the court is Horace Mann's motion (#59) for summary judgment as to its 

claims to the extent alleged against Seo and Kang.2 It is Horace Mann's position as expressed in 

2 Horace Maun does not, by and through its pending motion for summary judgment, 

address its claims against Tran, who remains a defendant in this action. As noted above, 

however, Horace Mann addressed its claims against Tran by and through its previously filed (and 

Page 3 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00164-PK Document 63 Filed 03/30/16 Page 3 of 5
its moving papers that, in light of Judge Brown's declarations issued in this matter to date, it is 

clear that Horace Mann does not owe any duty of indemnity or of coverage under its insurance 

policy, if any, with Ngo, in connection with the collision of September 20, 2014. Counsel for 

Horace Mann conferred by telephone with Seo and attempted to confer with Kang via email 

regarding its summmy judgment motion, and Seo indicated to Horace Mann's counsel that "it 

sounded like" she would not oppose the motion, but that she would discuss the matter with Kang 

before making a final decision. As of the date hereof, neither Seo nor Kang has filed any 

opposition to Horace Mann's motion, which went under advisement January 19, 2016. 

I agree with Horace Mann that, in light of Judge Brown's declaration that Horace Mann is 

entitled to rescission of the insurance contract, if any ever cmne into effect, between Horace 

Mann and Ngo, Horace Mann is entitled to the requested declarato1y judgment against Seo and 

Kang. In consequence, Horace Mann's motion for summary judgment should be granted, and the 

cou1t should declare that Horace Mann has no obligation to issue benefits under its insurance 

contract with Ngo, if any, to either Seo or Kang. 

In addition, for the same reasons set foith in my order (#38) dated July 28, 2015, default 

judgment should be entered as to Tran, and the court should declare that Horace Mann has no 

obligation to issue benefits under its insurance contract with Ngo, if any, to Tran. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, Horace Mann's motion (#59) should be granted, and this 

court should declare that Horace Mann has no obligation to issue benefits under its insurance 

contract with Ngo, if any, to Tran, Seo, or Kang. A final judgment should be prepared. 

previously granted) motion for default judgment of July 27, 2015. 

Page 4 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00164-PK Document 63 Filed 03/30/16 Page 4 of 5
SCHEDULING ORDER 

The Findings and Recommendation will be refened to a district judge. Objections, if any, 

are due fourteen (14) days from service of the Findings and Recommendation. Ifno objections 

are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. 

If objections are filed, then a response is due fourteen (14) days after being se!"Ved with a 

copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings 

and Recommendation will go under advisement. 

NOTICE 

A party's failure to timely file objections to any of these findings will be considered a 

waiver of that party's right to de novo consideration of the factual issues addressed herein and 

will constitute a waiver of the party's right to review of the findings of fact in any order or 

judgment entered by a district judge. These Findings and Recommendation are not immediately 

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Coutt of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(l) 

of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of judgment. 

Dated this 30th day of March, 2016. 

onorable Paul Papak 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Page 5 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00164-PK Document 63 Filed 03/30/16 Page 5 of 5