Perez v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 *NOT FOR PUBLICATION* 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IGNACIO PEREZ, Case No. 4:19-cv-07288-YGR 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON MOTION 13 v. TO STAY 14 INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Re: Dkt. No. 87 Defendant. 15 16 In the related matter, Perez v. Rash Curtis & Associates, No. 4:16-cv-03396-YGR, (N.D. 17 Cal.) (“Perez I”), a jury verdict was entered that each member of the class shall recover from 18 defendant the amount of $500 per call made in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection 19 Act (“TCPA”), for an aggregate award in favor of the class of over $267 million. (Dkt. No. 347.) 20 On October 25, 2020, the Court approved the October 11, 2019 assignment, which assigned to the 21 class Rash Curtis & Associates’ (“Rash Curtis”) bad faith claim against its insurer, Indian Harbor 22 Insurance Company (“Indian Harbor”). (Dkt. No. 392.) 23 In this action, Ignacio Perez is now seeking to recover monies against Indian Harbor. (See 24 Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) Perez brings one count of a breach of contract – a breach of the good faith and 25 fair dealing provision – and seeks to recover the jury award plus interest. (Id. at 4-5.) The Court 26 previously granted a motion to dismiss certain related defendants, denied a motion to stay, and 27 1 Now before the Court is Indian Harbor’s motion to reconsider the Court’s prior Order with 2 respect to the denial of the motion to stay. (Dkt. No. 87.) Specifically, Indian Harbor contends 3 that recent authority from the United States Supreme Court in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19- 4 511, 141 S.Ct. 1163, 2021 WL 1215717 (U.S. Apr. 1, 2021), warrant the staying of this case. In 5 light of this recent intervening authority, the Court granted leave to Indian Harbor to file a motion 6 for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 84 (motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration), 85 (Order 7 granting leave to file a motion for reconsideration).) 8 Having reviewed the parties’ briefing, and for the reasons set forth below, the motion for 9 reconsideration and to stay the case is DENIED. 10 In short, Indian Harbor has not demonstrated the appropriateness of a stay in light of 11 Duguid. The parties at minimum agree that Duguid will result in at least a reduction of the 12 judgment in the Perez I matter in the amount of approximately $15,532,000, decreasing the total 13 award from $267,349,000 to $251,817,000. Indian Harbor contends however that the entire 14 judgement is unsound and therefore at risk of being entirely reversed and remanded back to this 15 Court in light of Duguid. This is especially so, Indian Harbor contends, in light of California state 16 authority which requires the exhaustion of all appeals for the finality of judgments. 17 Indian Harbor does not persuade. Indian Harbor does not demonstrate that the entire 18 judgment is at risk from Duguid. At best, Duguid will require an approximately 5.8% reduction in 19 the total damages amount. Indian Harbor does not otherwise show that Duguid would warrant the 20 reversal of the remaining damages amount. Indian Harbor’s further reliance on California 21 authority is misplaced. As the Court previously held, “unlike California state court judgments, 22 federal judgments like the one in [Perez]’s prior federal action are deemed final when entered, 23 even if an appeal is pending.” Liu v. Levinson, 17-cv--5384-JSW, 2018 WL 10604346, at *7 (N.D. 24 Cal. May 11, 2018) (citing Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir. 2006)). This 25 contrasts to California state law, where “a judgment is not final during the pendency of and until 26 the resolution of an appeal.” Louen v. City of Fresno, 1:04-cv-06556-OWW SMS, 2007 WL 27 2288321, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2007) (citing Sosa, 437 F.3d at 928). 1 circumstances.’” Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. United States Envtl. Protection Agency, 4:18-cv- 2 |} 01604-YGR, 2018 WL 3548885, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2018) (quoting Landis v. North Am. 3 Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936)). In contemplating a stay, a court should weigh, inter alia, “the 4 || possible damage which may result from granting the stay.” /d. Here, the related Perez J case was 5 commenced approximately five years ago. A stay of this case, based upon actions undertaken in 6 || Perez I, would be highly prejudicial to Perez’s and the class’s case. Therefore, even in weighing 7 || the appropriateness of the stay, any stay is highly prejudicial to Perez and the class and outweighs 8 any harm to Indian Harbor from the denial of a stay. 9 Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 10 This Order terminates Docket Number 87. 11 IT Is SO ORDERED. ae 2 Dated: June 24, 2021 VONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28