Madrigal
Madrigal v. Allstate Insurance Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Segal, J.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (Dkt. No. 281) AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (Dkt. No. 282)
I.
INTRODUCTION
On April 21, 2014, Plaintiffs Carlos Madrigal (“Madrigal”), Richard Tang and Anna Tang (the “Tangs”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit in state court against Defendant Allstate Indemnity Company (“Allstate”) 1 alleging claims arising from Allstate’s failure to accept a settlement demand. Allstate removed the action to federal court on June 2, 2014 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. On September 30, 2015, the Court granted Allstate’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part, dismissing all of Plaintiffs’ claims except: (1) Madrigal and the Tangs’ respective claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) the Tangs’ claims for intentional and negligent misrepresentation; 2 and (3) the Tangs’ prayer for punitive damages. (Dkt. No. 145 at 59-60).
*877 The Court held several pretrial hearings. The Court denied all of Plaintiffs motions in limine, but granted three of Allstate’s motions in limine. (Dkt. 167, 176). Regarding jury instructions, the Court rejected several of Plaintiffs…