Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Federal Insurance Co. v. Crescent Alliance Group, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

April 7, 2015

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
CRESCENT ALLIANCE GROUP, INC., Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE [Re: ECF 11, 14]

BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd's March 19, 2015 Report and Recommendation that plaintiff Federal Insurance Company's Motion for Default Judgment be granted. ECF 14. The time for objecting to the Report and Recommendation has elapsed, and no objections were filed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2).

Having reviewed the record and considered the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds it well-founded in fact and in law. There appears, however, to be a typographical error in the Report and Recommendation: Judge Lloyd recommends awarding $261, 012 in compensatory damages, but Plaintiff has requested $265, 012 and has submitted evidence that supports this amount. As such, the Court will award Plaintiff the requested amount of $265, 012 in compensatory damages. With that modification, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff shall have default judgment against defendant Crescent Alliance Group, Inc. in the amount of $265, 012.

Plaintiff shall have leave to file an interest calculation and bill of costs, as well as a motion for attorneys' fees, by the deadline set in Judge Lloyd's Report and Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

[Re: Docket No. 11]

Federal Insurance Company sues Crescent Alliance Group, Inc. for failure to remit premiums and surcharges for insurance coverage provided by Plaintiff. The Clerk entered default against Defendant after it was served with a summons and complaint but failed to answer or otherwise appear. See Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff now moves for default judgment. See Dkt. No. 11. Defendant has not opposed the motion. Because not all parties have consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction, the undersigned orders that the case be REASSIGNED to a district judge. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that the motion be GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff issued the following policies of workers' compensation insurance to Defendant: (1) Policy No. 004472717100 for the effective dates of July 31, 2011 to July 31, 2012 ("2011 Policy"); and (2) a renewal of the 2011 Policy under Policy No. 0044727101 for the effective dates of July 31, 2012 to July 31, 2013, cancelled mid-term as of April 18, 2013 ("2012 Policy"). Compl. ¶¶ 6-7. These two policies are insurance contracts that provide, in exchange for payment of premiums, insurance coverage for liabilities of Defendant under the workers' compensation statutes of various states, including California. Id. ¶ 8.

Plaintiff alleges that it fulfilled its contractual obligations and provided the coverage afforded by the Polices. Id. ¶ 9. For the 2011 Policy, the sum total of premiums and surcharges, including audit premiums, is $437, 867. Id. ¶ 13. Defendant remitted $186, 452 for premiums and surcharges, and therefore remains indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of $251, 415. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. For the 2012 Policy, the sum total of premiums and surcharges, including the audit premiums, is $207, 650. Id. ¶ 16. Defendant remitted $194, 053 for premiums and surcharges, and therefore remains indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of $13, 597. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Although Plaintiff has issued invoices and demands for payment for the outstanding premiums, Defendant has failed to remit the payment of $265, 012 owed to Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the Policies. Id. ¶¶ 19-20.

The complaint asserts three claims: (1) breach of contract; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) account stated. Dkt. No. 1. Defendant was served in April 2014. Dkt. No. 7. Defendant did not file an answer. Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default, and the Court entered default. Dkt. Nos. 8, 9. Plaintiff now moves for default judgment against Defendant. Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiff requests that default judgment be entered against Defendant in the amount of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.