Reitz et al v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 2/6/15 ORDERING that Defendant's MOTION to STRIKE Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 9 is GRANTED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MISTY DAWN REITZ and NICHOLAS
IVEY,
Plaintiffs,

13
v.

14
15
16
17

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation
registered to do business in
the State of California and
DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,

18

No. 2:14-CV-01614-GEB-EFB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’
UNAUTHORIZED FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S DISMISSAL MOTION

Defendants.

19
20
21

Defendant Progressive Choice Insurance Company1 moves

22

for an order striking Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

23

and for an order dismissing this lawsuit with prejudice. (ECF No.

24

9.)

25

Plaintiffs lacked authority to amend the contract-based claim

Defendant

argues

the

FAC

should

be

stricken

because

26
1

27
28

Since Defendant argues in the motion that it is erroneously sued
as “Progressive Direct Insurance Company,” they are referred to here as
“Progressive Choice Insurance Company,” which Defendant argues is its proper
name.

1

1

that

2

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit as a sanction for filing the unauthorized

3

FAC.

they

amended

in

the

FAC.

Defendant

seeks

dismissal

of

4

Plaintiffs have not shown they were authorized to file

5

the FAC; therefore, the FAC is stricken. However, Defendant has

6

not demonstrated that Plaintiff’s lawsuit should be dismissed.

7

Hence, the dismissal motion is denied.

8

Dated:

February 6, 2015

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2