United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division
OPINION & ORDER
MICHAEL MCSHANE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Emilio Pina's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 15, and
Plaintiff Esurance Insurance Company
(“Esurance”)'s Motion for Entry of Default,
ECF No. 12, and Esurance's Motion for Summary Judgment,
ECF No. 16.
is an insurance company with its principal place of business
in California. Esurance issued a homeowner's insurance
policy to Seth and Michelle Hamm, covering their residence in
Coos County, Oregon. The policy was in effect during the
relevant period and contained an exclusion for conduct which
constitutes a criminal act.
March 18, 2018, Seth Hamm and Emilio Pina got into an
altercation, during which Seth Hamm shot Pina with a firearm.
On May 7, 2018, Seth Hamm pleaded guilty to Assault in the
Third Degree with a firearm and was sentenced to thirty-six
months in prison. Compl. Ex. C.
3, 2018, Pina sued Seth Hamm for his injuries stemming from
the gunshot wound, seeking $1.6 million. Compl. Ex. D. Seth
and Michelle Hamm have made a claim for Esurance to defend
and indemnify Seth Hamm in that action. Esurance undertook to
defend Seth Hamm under a reservation of rights. Pina
subsequently dismissed his lawsuit with the intent to refile.
As of yet, Pina has not refiled his suit against Seth Hamm.
September 2018, Esurance filed this this action for
declaratory relief. Esurance seeks a judgment declaring that
the applicable policy provides no coverage for Seth and
Michelle Hamm for claims made by Pina in the underlying
lawsuit and that Esurance has no obligation to defend or
indemnify Seth and Michelle Hamm for any injuries stemming
from the criminal acts of Seth Hamm on March 18, 2018.
judgment is appropriate if the record shows that “there
is no genuine dispute as to any materials fact and the
[moving party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Substantive law on an issue
determines the materiality of a fact. T.W. Elec. Servs.,
Inc. v. Pac. Elect Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626,
630 (9th Cir. 1987). Whether the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party determines the authenticity of the dispute.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.
Caltrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party
shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the
nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify
facts which show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at
rules of construction apply when evaluating a summary
judgment motion: (1) all reasonable doubts as to the
existence of genuine issues of material fact should be
resolved against the moving party; and (2) all inferences
drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. T.W. Elec.,
809 F.2d at 630-31.
Motion for Default
has filed a Motion for Entry of Default against Pina and
Michelle Hamm. ECF No. 12. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 55, when a party “against whom a judgment for
affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise
defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or ...