Dean

Dean v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMarch 20, 20253:25-cv-00341California1,912 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

22 On January 23, 2025, plaintiff James Dean filed his Complaint in California Superior 23 Court. ECF No. 1-2 (“Compl.”). He alleges that he purchased from Reliance a long-term 24 disability insurance policy (the “Policy”) “for himself and his employees.” Compl. ¶ 2. 25 Plaintiff further alleges that he was injured in an accident on March 26, 2022, during which 26 while walking on the sidewalk in San Diego he was struck by a woman illegally riding an 27 electric scooter on the sidewalk. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff suffered broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. Id. Thereafter, he made a claim on the Policy, which Reliance denied. Id. ¶ 18. The Complaint brings state-law claims against Reliance, and against its corporate parent Tokio, based on the denial of his claim. On February 14, 2025, Defendants removed the action to this Court. ECF No. 1. On February 21, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff’s opposition brief was due on March 14, 2025, but Plaintiff did not file one. On March 19, 2025, Defendants filed a notice that because Plaintiff had failed to oppose the motion, they would not be filing a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.