Montes-Harris

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Findley

Good Law
395 F.3d 1046
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 12, 200503-56651, 03-56652California2,968 words

Opinion

Opinion

Paez, J.

ORDER

We certify to the California Supreme Court the question set forth in Part II of this order. All further proceedings in this case are stayed pending final action by the California Supreme Court, and this case is withdrawn from submission until further order of this court.

I. CAPTION AND COUNSEL

A. The caption of the case is as follows:

B. The names and addresses of counsel are:

II. QUESTION OF LAW

Pursuant to Rule 29.8(a) of the California Rules of Court, we respectfully request the Supreme Court of California to decide the certified question presented below. There is no controlling precedent regarding the certified question, the resolution of which may be determinative of this appeal. Our phrasing of the question should not restrict the Court’s consideration of the issues involved. We agree to accept, the decision provided by the California Supreme Court. The question of law to be decided is:

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Appellants Javier Cortez, Blanca Montes-Harris, Monica Arredondo, and Camilla Toni Harris appeal from the district court’s judgment declaring that Ap-pellee Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”) has no liability for damages appellants…

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.