1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY Case No. 25-cv-05508-JSC

COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT,

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 9 PREJUDICE MOTION FOR DEFAULT v. JUDGMENT 10 I.C. REFRIGERATION SERVICE INC., et Re: Dkt. No. 35 11 al., Defendants. 12 13 In this insurance coverage declaratory judgment action, Plaintiff insurer Travelers 14 Indemnity (“Travelers”) seeks a judicial declaration it has no duty to defend or indemnify I.C. 15 Refrigeration Service, Inc. or Flory Construction, Inc. (“Flory”) in a state court construction defect 16 action Highbridge Oakland (“Highbridge”) has filed against these two entities (the “Underlying 17 Suit”). By Order filed November 10, 2025, the Court granted Flory’s motion to dismiss Travelers’ 18 claim as to the duty to defend because Travelers could not show the damages Highbridge seeks in 19 the Underlying Suit are not potentially “property damages” covered by the policies at issue 20 (collectively “the Policy”), and failed to establish that any exclusion within the Policy precluded 21 coverage as a matter of law. (Dkt. No. 50.) The Court also stayed the remaining claim as to the 22 duty to indemnify. (Id.) 23 Now pending before the Court is Travelers’ motion for default judgment against defendant 24 Highbridge. (Dkt. No. 35.) Travelers asks the Court to grant default judgment and issue a 25 declaration that the damages Highbridge alleges in the Underlying Suit are economic damages, not 26 property damages covered by the Policy. After carefully considering the parties’ written 27 submissions, including Flory’s opposition (Dkt. No. 46), as well as the submissions in connection 1 required, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the November 20, 2025 hearing, and 2 || DENIES without prejudice the motion for default judgment. 3 A court abuses its discretion if it enters a default judgment as to one defendant that is 4 || inconsistent with the position of non-defaulting defendants. See In re First T.D.& Inv., Inc., 253 5 || F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 2001); see also PetConnect Rescue, Inc. v. Salinas, 656 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 6 1183 (S.D. Cal. 2023) (denying motion for default judgment because “[a] default judgment 7 against [the defaulting defendant] on these claims could lead to ‘logically inconsistent results’ if 8 || the other Defendants ultimately prevail”); Warm v. Innermost Ltd., No. CV 21-04402-MWF 9 || SHKX), 2025 WL 1674483 at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 28, 2025) (“The principal concern is avoiding 10 || logically inconsistent adjudications as to liability.”). Here, the Court has already concluded the 11 damages sought by the complaint in the Underlying Suit are potentially covered by the Policy and 12 || therefore Travelers has a duty to defend. (Dkt. No. 50.) So, a declaration that Highbridge does 5 13 not seek property damages within the meaning of the Policy would directly conflict with that 14 || ruling (as well as the Underlying Suit’s allegations). The Court therefore exercises its discretion 3 15 to deny the motion for default judgment without prejudice. Travelers may renew the motion, if a 16 || necessary, after the resolution of the Underlying Suit. 3 17 This Order disposes of Docket No. 35. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: November 13, 2025 20 , td 21 ne 7 ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28