CRV Imperial-Worthington, LP v. Gemini Insurance

Good Law
770 F. Supp. 2d 1074·2010 WL 6109051·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142240
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 29, 20103:10-cr-01010California2,367 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huff, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

On May 12, 2010, CRV Imperial-Worthington, LP, Watermark Granite La Quinta, LLC, IC-Lemoore, LP, and Innovative Communities, Inc. (together “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Gemini Insurance Company (“Defendant”). (Doc. No. 1.) On May 25, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 3.) On August 4, 2010, 2010 WL 6110043 , the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 8.) On September 3, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”). (Doc. No. 9.) On September 24, 2010, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ SAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 11.) On October 18, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 13.) On October 25, 2010, Defendant filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 15.) The Court determined that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and submitted the motion on the parties’ papers pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). (Doc. No. 16.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant’s motion…

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.