Nautilus Insurance Company v. Gonzalez ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 1:20-cv-1675-NONE-JLT 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING 14 ELVIA GONZALEZ, et al., PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 19, 22) 16 17 18 Nautilus Insurance Company asserts that under an insurance policy issued to the 19 California Teachers Association, the company had no duty to defend or indemnify Elvia Gonzalez 20 in an underlying civil action filed by Gerard L. in Kern County Superior Court. Nautilus and 21 Gonzalez reached an agreement that judgment be entered against Gonzalez. (See Doc. No. 17.) 22 Plaintiff seeks the entry of default judgment against Gerard L. (Doc. No. 19.) 23 The assigned magistrate judge determined the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel 24 v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986), weighed in favor of the entry of default judgment. 25 (Doc. No. 22 at 5–9.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the pending motion for 26 default judgment be granted, and the court enter judgment finding Nautilus had no duty to defend 27 or indemnify Elvia Gonzalez in the underlying state action. (Id. at 8–9.) 28 ///// 1 The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendations. 2 | (Doc. No. 9 at 9.) The parties were “advised that failure to file objections within the specified 3 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (/d., citing Martinez v. YIst, 951 4 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). Thus, any 5 | objections were to be filed no later than September 7, 2021. To date, no objections have been 6 | filed by either party. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley 8 United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this court conducted a de novo review of 9 | the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations 10 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, 11 1. The findings and recommendations dated August 24, 2021 (Doc. No. 22) are 12 adopted in full; 13 2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 19) is granted; 14 3. The court finds Nautilus Insurance Company had no duty to defend Elvia 15 Gonzalez in the underlying state court action; 16 4. The court finds Nautilus Insurance Company had no duty to indemnify Elvia 17 Gonzalez in the underlying state court action; 18 5. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Elvia Gonzalez pursuant 19 to the agreement of the parties (Doc. No. 17); and 20 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action. 21 | Iris SO ORDERED. 22 /)} A fF; Dated: _ September 21, 2021 Ae 1" Sra 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28