Judge: Lon F. Hurwitz, Case: 2019-01061811, Date: 2022-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

RULING:

Before the Court is Defendant/Cross-complainant Tokio Marine Specialty Ins. Co.’s (“Tokio Marine”) unopposed Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the following issues:

1. Declaratory Relief as to Blenheim’s duty to defend;

2. Declaratory relief as to Blenheim’s duty to indemnify; and

3. Tokio Marine’s entitlement to reasonable attorney’s fees as the subrogee of Plaintiff City of San Juan Capistrano (“the City”).

CCP § 437c(f)(1) allows summary adjudication as to causes of action, affirmative defenses, claims for damages, or an issue of duty. As to the issues of duty, the Court finds Tokio Marine is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and no triable issue of material fact exists. Therefore, summary adjudication is granted.

However, summary adjudication is denied as to Tokio Marine’s request for “judgment” that it is contractually entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees as the City’s subrogee. Even if CCP § 437c(f)(1) allowed Tokio Marine to move for summary adjudication as to this portion of its Prayer, Tokio Marine failed to submit evidence establishing the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses it has incurred in connection with its defense of the City’s action or in prosecution of its Cross-Complaint.

Tokio Marine’s Request for judicial notice is granted as to the existence of and legal effects of the court records, but not as to the truth of any disputed facts asserted therein. (Evid. Code §452(d); Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264; Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482.)

Moving party to give notice and prepare, file, serve, and lodge a proposed judgment.