From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States Fire Ins. Co. v. ICICLE Seafoods, Inc.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Dec 20, 2021
2:20-cv-00401-RSM (W.D. Wash. Dec. 20, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-cv-00401-RSM

12-20-2021

UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, v. ICICLE SEAFOODS, INC., et al., Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Icicle Seafoods, Inc., et al. Franklin D. Cordell, WSBA #26392 Michael Rosenberger, WSBA #17730 Greg D. Pendleton, WSBA #38361 Chelsey L. Mam, WSBA #44609 Miles C. Bludorn, WSBA #54238 BAUER MOYNIHAN & JOHNSON LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants United States Fire Insurance Company, et al. Matthew C. Crane, WSBA #18003 Meliha Jusupovic, WSBA #54024 LETHER LAW GROUP Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants United States Fire Insurance Company, et al. Thomas Lether, WSBA #18089 Sam Colito, WSBA #42529


GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP

Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Icicle Seafoods, Inc., et al.

Franklin D. Cordell, WSBA #26392

Michael Rosenberger, WSBA #17730

Greg D. Pendleton, WSBA #38361

Chelsey L. Mam, WSBA #44609

Miles C. Bludorn, WSBA #54238

BAUER MOYNIHAN & JOHNSON LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants United States Fire Insurance Company, et al.

Matthew C. Crane, WSBA #18003

Meliha Jusupovic, WSBA #54024

LETHER LAW GROUP

Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants United States Fire Insurance Company, et al.

Thomas Lether, WSBA #18089

Sam Colito, WSBA #42529

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND DISBURSEMENT OF REGISTRY FUNDS

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The parties hereby stipulate to and jointly move for entry of judgment and disbursement of the funds held in the registry of this Court.

On November 19, 2021, the Court entered its Order Re: Motions for Summary Judgment (“MSJ Order”). Dkt. 144. The MSJ Order held as follows: (i) Washington law applies to the parties' dispute; (ii) Icicle is not entitled to a jury trial; (iii) “Icicle is required to demonstrate an actual loss sustained of net earnings lost during the 14-day deductible period for the 2017 cod or sockeye salmon seasons”; and (iv) Icicle breached its duty to cooperate with the Insurers as a matter of law, prejudicing Insurers and thereby discharging the Insurers' obligations under the policies and warranting summary dismissal of all of Icicle's counterclaims.

The motions that the Court decided in the MSJ Order did not seek judgment on the Insurers' sole affirmative claim, which seeks declaratory relief. See Dkt. 3 at ¶33 (“The Court should declare the quantum of defendants' actual loss of net earnings, if any, sustained in consequence of the RM THORSTENSON's main engine damage in December 2016 and as limited by the policy's terms and conditions, in order to determine the rights and obligations of the parties and to resolve the controversy between them.”). As a result, the MSJ Order did not dispose of the Insurers' claim for declaratory judgment. However, the parties agree that the rationale of the MSJ Order entitles the Insurers to summary judgment on their claim for declaratory relief. Put another way, because the Court held “the Insurers have been discharged of their obligations arising from the policy, ” Dkt. 144 at 25, there is no longer any need for the Court to “declare the quantum of [Icicle's] actual loss of net earnings, if any, sustained” in connection with Icicle's loss of hire claim.

The parties thus respectfully request that the Court enter the attached proposed Judgment in a Civil Case. Cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(d) (“A party may request that judgment be set out in a separate document as required by Rule 58(a).”). The parties agree that Icicle's stipulation to entry of the requested Judgment in a Civil Case pertains only to the form of the attached proposed Judgment and is in no way a concession as to the substance or merits of any issue. Icicle intends to appeal the Judgment, and the parties further expressly agree that Icicle's right of appeal is fully preserved. The parties likewise agree that the Court should promptly disburse to Bauer Moynihan & Johnson LLP as counsel for the Insurers the entirety of the $966,638.48 in funds deposited by the Insurers in the Court's registry together with any accrued interest. See Dkt. 40.

A proposed judgment in appropriate form is submitted herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The clerk is authorized and directed to draw a check on the funds deposited in the registry of this court in the principal amount of $966,638.48 plus all accrued interest, minus any statutory users fees, payable to United States Fire Insurance Company, et al. and mail or deliver the check to Bauer Moynihan & Johnson LLP as counsel for the Insurers.


Summaries of

United States Fire Ins. Co. v. ICICLE Seafoods, Inc.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Dec 20, 2021
2:20-cv-00401-RSM (W.D. Wash. Dec. 20, 2021)
Case details for

United States Fire Ins. Co. v. ICICLE Seafoods, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim…

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Dec 20, 2021

Citations

2:20-cv-00401-RSM (W.D. Wash. Dec. 20, 2021)