Foraker v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 32

MINUTES of Proceedings: The Court GRANTS Defendants Motion 6 to Dismiss in part and DISMISSES without prejudice as premature Plaintiffs Second Claim for Relief. The Court DENIES as moot Defendants Request 8 for Judicial Notice. The Co urt DENIES as moot Plaintiffs Motion 21 to Quash and for Protective Order. The Court STRIKES all existing case-management dates and directs the parties to file by June 11, 2014, a joint status report. See attached Order for full text. Heather Brann, James Jennings, Nicholas Kahl present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Matthew Cases, Robert McLay present as counsel for defendant(s).(Court Reporter Amanda LeGore.) (bb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON

CIVIL MINUTES

Case No. 3:14-cv-00087-BR

Date: April 23, 2014

Case Title: Foraker v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company
Presiding Judge: Anna J. Brown

Courtroom Deputy: Bonnie Boyer
Tele: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

DOCKET ENTRY: Order
On April 23, 2014, the Court heard oral argument on Defendant’s Motion (#6) to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Claim
for Relief, Defendant’s Request (#8) for Judicial Notice, and Plaintiff’s Motion (#21) to Quash Subpoenas and for
Protective Order. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court rules as follows:
(1) The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion (#6) to Dismiss in part and DISMISSES without prejudice as
premature Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Relief which the Court construes as a claim for Financial Abuse of a
Vulnerable Person under Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 124.005, et seq . The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file
an amended complaint to plead, in accordance with federal pleading standards, a claim for relief based on
Defendant’s alleged breach of a duty owed to Plaintiff to the extent that Plaintiff contends such a duty exists
separately from the contractual duty asserted in Plaintiff’s First Claim for breach of contract. Plaintiff, however,
must not seek to plead a claim for Financial Abuse of a Vulnerable Person until such time as the amount of any
money that Defendant may owe to Plaintiff is actually determined. In the event Plaintiff chooses to file an amended
complaint, such amendment is due no later than Friday, May 9, 2014. Defendant’s answer or responsive pleading
to any such amendment is due no later than May 23, 2014. As stated on the record, in the interest of judicial
economy and the parties’ resources, the Court strongly encourages Defendant to preserve its defenses in the form of
an answer and to challenge any alleged deficiencies in Plaintiff’s operative complaint by way of dispositive motion.
(2) The Court DENIES as moot Defendant’s Request (#8) for Judicial Notice.
(3) The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion (#21) to Quash and for Protective Order in light of the parties’
resolution of the dispute as to the production of Plaintiff’s medical records and the costs of such production as
stated on the record.
(4) The Court STRIKES all existing case-management dates and directs the parties to file by June 11, 2014, a
joint status report notifying the Court as to the parties’ progress on the parties’ discovery efforts specifying any
then-existing unresolved discovery disputes and the parties' positions therein and, finally, proposing a new casemanagement schedule. Upon receipt of the parties’ joint report, the Court will determine whether a further
conference with the parties is necessary for the purpose of resolving any outstanding discovery issues and for
setting new case-management dates.