Stolz v. Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD ROYCE STOLZ, II, No. 2:18-cv-1923-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 105, 163, 164, 165) 14 TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 28, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 18 No. 163), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On May 5, 2020, 20 defendant filed a declaration regarding attorneys’ fees, as ordered by the magistrate judge. (ECF 21 No. 164.) On May 12, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF 22 No. 165), which have been considered by the court. 23 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 24 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 25 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 26 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 27 has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 28 See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 1 conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 2 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 4 concludes it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Further, the court 5 has reviewed defendant’s declaration regarding attorneys’ fees and costs, and finds the request to 6 be reasonable. Thus, defendant is awarded $4,900 in attorneys’ fees and $467.70 in costs, for a 7 total of $5,367.70. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 163) are ADOPTED IN FULL. 9 2. Defendant’s second motion to enforce (ECF No. 105, as renewed by ECF No. 158) is 10 GRANTED IN PART. 11 3. Plaintiff is SANCTIONED for his evasive and non-responsive answers to defendant’s 12 second set of interrogatories, questions one, two and three, and its first set of requests 13 for production of documents, question four. 14 4. Plaintiff is SANCTIONED as follows: 15 a. Plaintiff is barred from seeking damages for additional living expenses, loss of 16 rents, or loss of use of the Property; 17 b. For purposes of plaintiff’s claims in this action, it is presumed that plaintiff did 18 not reside at the El Dorado Property from January 1, 2015 onward, and that he 19 did not travel to or from the El Dorado Property, for business or personal 20 reasons, during this time. Plaintiff may rebut this presumption by relying on 21 any documents already exchanged between the parties. However, plaintiff 22 may not rely on his own self-serving statements—whether written in his 23 interrogatory responses, stated at any deposition, or offered at trial—that he 24 resided at the El Dorado Property; and 25 c. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the reasonable expenses of Travelers’s attorneys’ 26 fees, in the amount of $5,367.70. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 5. Within 21 days, the parties after conferring on further scheduling for this case shall 2 submit a joint statement with proposed dates. 3 DATED: August 20, 2020. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28