Durant v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 97

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 86 Amended Motion to Approve Class Notice; granting Defendant's 89 Motion to Stay; and granting Plaintiff's 93 Motion to Appoint Mr. Nauheim as class counsel. Defendant must produce the updated list of potential class members to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Furthermore, any dispositive motion deadlines are stayed pending the Washington Supreme Court's determinations with regard to the certified questions. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

BRETT DURANT, On Behalf of Himself
and all other similarly situated

11

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:15-cv-01710 RAJ
ORDER

12
13
14
15
16

vs.
STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign automobile
insurance company,

17
18

Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s amended motion to approve

19

class notice and appoint class counsel (Dkt. ## 86, 93) and Defendant’s motion to stay

20

(Dkt. # 89).

21

The Court certified this class action as well as questions to the Washington

22

Supreme Court. Dkt. ## 50, 76. The questions posed to the Washington Supreme Court

23

are relevant to any dispositive motions that Defendant may file in this matter. But the

24

answers to those questions will not act to void this Court’s order certifying the class.

25

Accordingly, the Court finds that sending notice to potential class members is

26

procedurally appropriate.

27

Defendant raises several objections to Plaintiff’s proposed amended notice. Dkt. #

ORDER - 1

1

88. Plaintiff does not oppose some of Defendant’s proposed changes to the class notice.

2

The Court approves the notice with the changes proposed by Defendant and agreed to by

3

Plaintiff. However, the Court agrees with Plaintiff regarding the remaining changes

4

proposed by Defendant; these are not appropriate and will not be included in the class

5

notice. Therefore, the Court APPROVES Plaintiff’s class notice subject to the agreed

6

changes found in Defendant’s opposition brief and Plaintiff’s reply brief.

7

In addition, Plaintiff seeks updated spreadsheets of potential class members. Dkt.

8

## 86, 90. The Court GRANTS this request; Defendant must produce the updated list of

9

potential class members to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.

10

Plaintiff also seeks to appoint class counsel. Defendant’s opposition relates only

11

to its wish to stay this matter pending Washington Supreme Court’s decision on the

12

certified questions. But Defendant raises no substantive arguments that go to the merits

13

of whether Mr. Nauheim should be appointed class counsel. Seeing no issue with the

14

merits of Plaintiff’s request, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to appoint Mr.

15

Nauheim as class counsel.

16

Defendant seeks to stay this matter pending the Washington Supreme Court’s

17

determinations with regard to the certified questions. Dkt. # 89. The Court finds that a

18

stay is appropriate as to dispositive motion deadlines but not with regard to class notice.

19

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to the extent that any dispositive

20

motion deadlines are stayed pending the Washington Supreme Court’s determinations

21

with regard to the certified questions.

22
23

Dated this 31st day of May, 2018.

A

24
25

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

26
27

ORDER - 2