SCJ Ins. Services v. Super. Ct.
Filed 12/24/09 SCJ Ins. Services v. Super. Ct. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
SCJ INSURANCE SERVICES, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; CRUZ SANCHEZ, Real Party in Interest. | B219522 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC383368) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Mel Red Recana, Judge. Petition is granted as modified.
Robie & Matthai James R. Robie, Ivan Mnatzaganian and Ronald P. Funnell for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
_______________________
Hudson Insurance Company (Hudson) issued automobile insurance to Cruz Sanchez on a month-to-month basis. SCJ Insurance Services (SCJ) serviced Hudsons policies by mailing monthly statements that invited policy renewal, taking receipt of premium payments, and applying them to the appropriate account.
On December 31, 2005, Sanchez was involved in an automobile accident in which his passengers were severely injured. A dispute arose as to whether Sanchez was covered by Hudson for damages resulting from the accident. Eventually, Sanchez filed suit against Hudson for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and against SCJ for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hudson and SCJ jointly brought a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication of each of Sanchezs claims in their favor. Respondent court granted the motion as to the fraud claim but otherwise denied it.
Hudson and SCJ petitioned for a writ of mandate directing respondent court to grant their motion in full. Because respondent courts ruling was correct as to Hudson, we denied the petition for a writ of mandate as to Hudson. However, as to Sanchezs claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against SCJ, we determined that respondent court should have summarily adjudicated the issue for SCJ. On October 23, 2009, we issued an alternative writ of mandate directing respondent court to grant summary adjudication of the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress as to SCJ or show cause why a peremptory writ of mandate ordering it to do so should not issue. A return to the petition was due November 4, 2009. If respondent court complied with the alternative writ, both it and SCJ were directed to supply this court with a copy of the minute order. SCJ provided proof of independently serving the alternative writ on the parties on October 27, 2009.
No minute order indicating respondent court complied with the alternative writ has been filed. Nor has a return to the petition been filed. Thus, there has been no showing of good cause why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate by SCJ is granted in part. Respondent court is directed to modify its September 30, 2009 order to summarily adjudicate Sanchezs fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress in favor of SCJ. The parties are to bear their own costs in this proceeding.
KRIEGLER, J.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
ARMSTRONG, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
