Peeler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 137

ORDER Granting 108 Motion to Stay Case. This case is STAYED until Peelers state-court action concludes. The Clerk of Court is directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties motions for summary judgment [ECF Nos. 130 and 132 ] are DENIED as moot and without prejudice to refiling after the stay is lifted. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 3/24/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KF)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Macie Peeler,
4

Case No.: 2:17-cv-02735-JAD-DJA
Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to
Stay and Denying as Moot Cross-Motions
for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff

5 v.
6 State Farm Automobile Insurance Company,
7

[ECF Nos. 108, 130, 132]

Defendant

8

This insurance bad-faith action arises out of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

9 Company’s denial of plaintiff Macie Peeler’s request for uninsured-motorist benefits following a
10 car accident allegedly caused by another driver. This case was stayed pending Peeler’s state11 court action against the other driver and resumed after a jury found against Peeler and awarded
12 her no damages for the accident. Recently, however, the Nevada Court of Appeals vacated that
13 state-court judgment and remanded that case for retrial. State Farm moves to stay the case again
14 pending the outcome of a second trial. Both parties also move for summary judgment. Because
15 I find that State Farm has demonstrated the need for a stay, I grant its motion and deny both
16 summary-judgment motions without prejudice.
17

Background

18

In July 2013, Macie Peeler was involved in a motor-vehicle accident with an uninsured

19 motorist during which she allegedly suffered serious injuries.1 At the time of the accident, Peeler
20 was a named insured under an automobile policy with State Farm.2 That policy had a
21 $100,000/$300,000 uninsured-motorist provision. The policy conditioned the payment of
22
1

ECF No. 34 at 15–21 (state-court complaint); ECF No. 1. at 12 (first-amended state-court
23 complaint).
2

ECF No. 34 at 23.

1 uninsured-motorist benefits on the insured’s ability to show legal entitlement to recover
2 compensatory damages from the tortfeasor by establishing the tortfeasor’s fault and the amount
3 of those damages.3
4

The case developed along two tracks. Peeler first contacted State Farm about the

5 uninsured-motorist coverage in April 2015.4 That May, she filed a lawsuit in state court against
6 the uninsured motorist and the car-rental company for negligence, negligence per se, and
7 negligent entrustment.5 While the state-court case was pending, Peeler submitted proof to State
8 Farm of the $148,334 she had incurred for medical treatment along with medical records that
9 showed her need for future surgery.6 The parties corresponded until August 10, 2017, when
10 “State Farm denied to extend an Uninsured Motorist bodily injury settlement offer.”7
11 Apparently, State Farm had valued Peeler’s claim at an undisclosed amount and it refused to
12 compensate her under the uninsured-motorist provision.8
13

Peeler then sued State Farm for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of

14 good faith and fair dealing in state court.9 State Farm removed that action to this court, and
15 Peeler filed a second-amended complaint.10 I denied State Farm’s motion to dismiss but granted
16 its request to stay the case pending the resolution of the state-court case.11
17
3

Id. at 49.

4

ECF No. 1 at 12.

5

ECF No. 34 at 15–21.

6

ECF No. 1 at 12.

7

Id.

8

22

Id.; ECF No. 7 at 5.

9

ECF No. 38-1 (first-amended federal-court complaint).

23

10

ECF No. 1; ECF No. 7.

11

ECF No. 24; ECF No. 30.

18
19
20
21

2

1

The state-court case went to trial in November 2018. Although the uninsured motorist

2 conceded fault for the accident, the jury found in his favor and awarded zero damages to
3 Peeler.12 Peeler then moved to lift the stay in this case after the state court entered its judgment,
4 and I granted that motion.13 Peeler also appealed the state-court verdict, arguing that the
5 uninsured motorist’s medical expert was not qualified to give the opinions he expressed during
6 the trial.14 In July 2021, the Nevada Court of Appeals vacated the verdict and remanded the case
7 for retrial, finding that the medical expert used unreliable methods to determine what caused
8 Peeler’s injuries and gave opinions that he was not qualified to give.15 State Farm now moves to
9 stay because retrying the state-court action prevents this court from making findings necessary to
10 the resolution of this case.16 Both parties also move for summary judgment on the merits of
11 Peeler’s claims.17
12 I.

A Landis stay is warranted.

13

A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the

14 efficient use of judicial resources.18 When determining whether a stay is appropriate pending the
15 resolution of another case—often called a “Landis stay”—the district court must weigh: (1) the
16 possible damage that may result from a stay, (2) any “hardship or inequity” that a party may
17
18
12

19
20
21

ECF No. 38-3 at 23 (transcript); ECF No. 34 at 81-82 (judgment).

13

ECF No. 32; ECF No. 33.

14

ECF No. 108-1 (Nevada Court of Appeals order reversing, vacating, and remanding the statecourt judgment).

23

Id.

16

ECF No. 108.

17

22

15

ECF No. 130; ECF No. 132.

18

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936); Dependable Highway Exp., Inc.
v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007).
3

1 suffer if required to go forward, (3) “and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
2 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law” that a stay will engender.19
3

State Farm moves for a stay pending the conclusion of the state-court action. It argues

4 that because Peeler chose to sue the uninsured motorist, she has chosen to prove legal
5 entitlement—a term of art that requires the insured to prove fault by the tortfeasor and the extent
6 of her damages—through that state-court action.20 Peeler objects, arguing that Nevada law does
7 not require an insured to obtain a judgment against a tortfeasor to prove legal entitlement and
8 therefore she need not await the outcome of the state-court action to proceed here.21 These legal9 entitlement arguments have been made several times in this case, but I need not address their
10 merits again. I initially stayed this case under Landis v. North American Company due to a
11 practical damages consideration, which is as relevant now as it was then.22 It will be difficult, if
12 not impossible, for a jury in this case to calculate damages unless and until the state-court
13 process determines how much, if anything, the uninsured motorist will pay. While these cases
14 are against separate parties and bring separate causes of action, the state-court action impacts the
15 resolution of this one, such that allowing both to proceed simultaneously would be a waste of
16 judicial resources. And Peeler has not demonstrated any damage or hardship that would result
17 from a stay beyond the specter of delay.23 I find that the hardship imposed by moving forward at
18
19
19

20

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).

20

ECF No. 108 at 5–6.

21

21

ECF No. 113 at 6–7.

22

Landis, 299 U.S. 248; ECF No. 30.

22
23

Peeler focuses on standards for abstention under Colorado River Water Conservation District
23 v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), as stated by a court in the District of Nevada in
Commercial Casualty Insurance Company v. Swarts, Manning & Associates, Inc., 616 F. Supp.
2d 1027 (2007), and does not address the slightly different Landis factors. See ECF No. 113 at
4

1 this late stage of litigation with the dispute between Peeler and the other motorist back to tabula
2 rasa, along with the waste of judicial resources that could result if the instant case proceeds and
3 has to be unwound based on developments in that underlying state-court case, outweigh any
4 hardship caused by delay. So I stay this case until the state-court action concludes, deny both
5 summary-judgment motions as moot and without prejudice to refiling when the stay has been
6 lifted, and administratively close this case.24 Either party may move to lift the stay and reopen
7 the case when the state-court action concludes.
8

Conclusion

9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that State Farm Automobile Insurance Company’s

10 motion to stay [ECF No. 108] is GRANTED. This case is STAYED until Peeler’s state-court
11 action concludes. The Clerk of Court is directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ motions for summary judgment [ECF Nos.

12

13 130 and 132] are DENIED as moot and without prejudice to refiling after the stay is lifted.
14
15

__________ ___________________
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey
March 24 2022

16
17
18
19
20

10–18. Because I find that Landis provides the appropriate vehicle to stay this case, I decline to
21 address Colorado River’s abstention factors.
24

Peeler alternatively asks that I consolidate this case with the state-court action and allow both
to be tried in state court. ECF No. 113 at 19–20. A federal judge does not have the authority to
foist a federal action upon the state courts. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 allows
23
consolidation of “actions before the court” if they involve a common question of law or fact.
The state-court action is obviously not before this court.
22

5