American Family Connect Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Federal Insurance Company

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AMERICAN FAMILY CONNECT Case No.: 3:22-cv-01351-JO-AGS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 13 ORDER ON REQUESTS FOR Plaintiff, JUDICIAL NOTICE AND PARTIAL v. ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR 15 SUMMARY JUDGMENT FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

20 On August 21, 2024, the Court issued its partial ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the record. First, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff, American Family Connect Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Connect”) Request for Judicial Notice. Dkt. 40. Connect requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Docket of the 4th Appellate District for the California Court of Appeals, Division 1, for Case No. D0735538 entitled Deen v. Deen. As Connect only requests notice of the existence of this docket, not the truth of its contents, the Court finds that judicial notice is appropriate under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Fed. R. Evid. 201; United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, 1 well as the records of an inferior court in other cases.”). Second, for the reasons stated 2 the record, the Court GRANTS Defendant, Federal Insurance Company’s (“Federal’’) || Request for Judicial Notice. Dkt. 34-1.

4 With regard to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, as stated on the record, the Court holds that Federal was not relieved of its duty to defend the Deens against || cross-claims raised in the state court case, Deen v. Deen, 37-2016-00022636-CU-OR-NC, 7 account of its Covered Persons and Dependents Exclusion. The Court also holds that || the cross-complaint in the state court case, Deen v. Fitzgerald Yap Kreditor LLP, 37-2021- || 00015644-CU-FR-NC, did potentially raise a malicious prosecution against the Deens, but || did not potentially raise a defamation claim. Given that Connect only moves for summary ||judgment on its third cause of action for declaratory relief on the ground that the cross- ||claims in Deen vy. Fitzgerald Yap Kreditor LLP raise a defamation claim, the Court || DENIES IN PART Connect’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 35.

14 The Court takes under submission the issue of whether Federal had a duty to defend 15 Deens in light of of Federal’s Intentional Acts Exclusion in both Deen v. Deen and || Deen v. Fitzgerald Yap Kreditor LLP. The Court invites the parties to submit supplemental || briefing on this issue on or by Wednesday, August 28, 2024 and responsive supplemental || briefing on or by Wednesday, September 4, 2024. The Court will later issue a written order || on this issue, which will determine whether to grant or deny Federal’s motion for summary 20 judgment and Connect’s motion for partial summary judgment on its first cause of action || for declaratory relief. Dkts. 34, 35.

22 || IT ISSO ORDERED.

24 Dated: August 21, 2024 26 Hot (orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 27 United States District Judge