Pivonka

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENT PIVONKA, et al., No. 2:11-cv-01759-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 This matter is before the Court on Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate 19 Property and Casualty Company’s (collectively, “Defendants” or “Allstate”) Motion to Dismiss. 20 (ECF No. 89.) Plaintiffs Kent Pivonka (“Pivonka”) and James Smith (“Smith”) (collectively, 21 “Plaintiffs”) filed an opposition. (ECF No. 95.) Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 97.) For the 22 reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 2 Plaintiffs are California residents who carried insurance policies with Allstate and made 3 claims for personal property losses caused by a fire. (ECF No. 85 at 3.) Plaintiffs’ policies 4 obligate Allstate to pay the actual cash value (“ACV”) of lost or damaged property subject to 5 certain exclusions. …