Lintott

Grange Insurance v. Lintott

Good Law
77 F. Supp. 3d 926·2015 WL 65216·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1136
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 5, 2015Case No.: 11-CV-6419 YGRCalifornia6,475 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rogers, J.

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

This suit arises out of allegedly defamatory statements made by defendant Meredith Lintott (“Lintott”) during her cam-' paign for re-election to the position of District Attorney for Mendocino County, California. Robert Forest, the individual who was allegedly defamed by the statements, filed a lawsuit against Lintott in *929 California state court (“Forest action”) in which he alleges two separate counts of defamation and one count each of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Dkt. No. 32-3 (“Forest action eompl.”).) Plaintiff Grange Insurance Association (“Grange”), Lintott’s insurer, seeks a declaration that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify her in the Forest action because the nature of the Forest action is not covered by her homeowner’s insurance policy (the “Policy”). (See Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 17.)

Now before the Court is Grange’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 32.) In response, Lintott has filed an opposition and a motion to strike. (Dkt. Nos. 33, 38.) Grange has responded to both. (Dkt. Nos. 34, 35.)

Having carefully considered the papers and evidence…

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.