Opinion
Case No.: 2:16CV07443 MWF (ASx)
06-01-2018
JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Plaintiff, v. MEDOLAC LABORATORIES A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; NEOLAC, INC. dba MEDOLAC, a Delaware corporation; ELENA TAGGART MEDO, an individual; and PROLACTA BIOSCIENCE, INC., a Delaware corporation; ADRIENNE WEIR, an individual, Defendants.
[Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald, 1st St. Ctrm 5A]
JUDGMENT
WHEREAS having determined in its Order granting plaintiff James River Insurance Company's ("JAMES RIVER") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 75) that JAMES RIVER never had a duty to defend defendants MEDOLAC LABORATORIES A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION ("MEDOLAC") formerly known as NEOLAC, INC. dba MEDOLAC ("NEOLAC"); ELENA TAGGART MEDO ("MEDO") or ADRIANNE WEIR ("WEIR") with regard to Prolacta Bioscience, Inc. v. Elena Taggart Medo, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2015-00767116-CU-NP-CJC (the "Prolacta Action") and that JAMES RIVER is entitled to reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs incurred from October 26, 2016 through March 27, 2018 in defense of MEDO, MEDOLAC and WEIR; and
WHEREAS the Parties have stipulated that JAMES RIVER is entitled to reimbursement of $224,470.22 in attorney's fees and costs defending MEDO and $33,827.20 in attorney's fees and costs defending MEDOLAC and WEIR; and
WHEREAS JAMES RIVER has established that it never had a duty to defend defendants MEDO, MEDOLAC or WEIR with regard to the Prolacta Action, and is therefore entitled to have judgment in its favor on each of the Counterclaims asserted by MEDO, MEDOLAC and WEIR in their Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims to Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 48); and
WHEREAS Prolacta Bioscience, Inc. ("PROLACTA") previously stipulated and agreed with JAMES RIVER that PROLACTA would be bound by any Judgment entered in favor of JAMES RIVER (Dkt. # 30), and such was Ordered by the Court (Dkt. # 32);
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
1. JAMES RIVER is entitled to and shall have Judgment in its favor on the First Claim for Relief of its Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 46) to wit, that there is no potential for coverage for the Prolacta Action under Commercial General Liability Policy No. 63565-0 or 63565-1 issued by JAMES RIVER to NEOLAC, INC. (the "POLICY") and that JAMES RIVER does not and never did have a duty to defend MEDO, MEDOLAC or WEIR with regard to the Prolacta Action; and
2. JAMES RIVER is entitled to and shall have Judgment in its favor on the Second Claim for Relief of its Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 46) to wit, that it is entitled to recover $224,470.22 from MEDO and $33,827.20 from MEDOLAC and WEIR on its claim for reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs for the period of October 25, 2016 through March 27, 2018; and
3. JAMES RIVER is entitled to and shall have Judgment in its favor on each of the Counterclaims asserted by MEDO, MEDOLAC and WEIR in their Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims to Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 48); and
4. As to PROLACTA, JAMES RIVER is entitled to and shall have Judgment in its favor on its Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 46) in its entirety; and
5. That Defendants MEDO, MEDOLAC, NEOLAC, WEIR and PROLACTA shall take nothing by way of judgment against JAMES RIVER. Dated: June 1, 2018
/s/_________
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
United States District Judge