Link et al v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 40

ORDER denying plaintiffs' 38 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS)

THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11

KATHLEEN LINK and RUSSELL LINK,
NO. 2:16-cv-01117-RAJ

12

Plaintiffs,
vs.

13
14
15

ORDER

AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

16
17
18

I.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Kathleen and Russell Link’s

19
20

INTRODUCTION

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 8, 2017 order granting a stay in the

21

proceedings. Dkts. # 37, 28. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiffs’ motion.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to this Court’s Local Civil Rules, “[m]otions for reconsideration are

disfavored.” LCR 7(h). The Court will only grant such a motion upon a “showing of
ORDER - 1

1

manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not

2

have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id.

3

III.

DISCUSSION

4
5

The facts of this case are well known to the Court and the parties, and the Court

6

will not recount them here. Plaintiffs request that the Court reconsider its order

7

granting a stay pending the outcome of an independent proceeding in the Washington

8

Court of Appeals, arguing that the result of that appeal will not affect the instant
9
10

proceeding in this Court. The Court concluded in its previous Order that “the viability

11

of Plaintiffs’ bad-faith claims depends on the validity of the stipulated judgment” that

12

is now being appealed. Dkt. # 37.

13

Plaintiffs renew their argument that the Washington Court of Appeals is

14
15

powerless to invalidate the settlement underlying the stipulated judgment assigning

16

Plaintiffs the claims they bring here. In their brief opposing the stay, Plaintiffs

17

contended that “[t]he Court [of Appeals] cannot simply ‘rescind’ the binding

18

settlement agreement and assignment between the Wallys and Links. Even if Division

19
20

I decided to overturn a Division I Judge’s reasonableness determination, the only issue

21

impacted is the amount of damages, and that would then be decided in binding

22

arbitration.” Dkt. # 29 at 8. Plaintiffs cited no law supporting their argument that the

23

appellate court’s review has no bearing on the validity of the assignment of claims.

24
25
26

Now, for the first time, Plaintiffs direct the Court’s attention to RCW 4.22.060(3),
which provides:

ORDER - 2

A determination that the amount paid for a release, covenant not to sue,
covenant not to enforce judgment, or similar agreement was unreasonable
shall not affect the validity of the agreement between the released and
releasing persons nor shall any adjustment be made in the amount paid
between the parties to the agreement.

1
2
3
4

Given the plain text of the statute, it appears that Plaintiffs’ argument is, indeed,

5
6

meritorious.

7

authority could not have been brought to the Court’s attention sooner. Nor have

8

However, Plaintiffs have not provided an explanation for why this

Plaintiffs shown that the Court’s discretionary issuance of a stay rises to a level of

9

manifest error that injures them in any way. See Dkt # 37 at 4. Therefore, the Court’s
10
11

decision granting a stay will stand. But, as requested by Plaintiffs, the Court clarifies

12

that the stay will be lifted after a decision from Division 1 of the Court of Appeals and

13

will not be extended even in the event that the Washington Supreme Court reviews the

14

case.
15
16

IV.

CONCLUSION

17

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for
18
19
20

reconsideration.
Dated this 30th day of August, 2017.

21

A

22
23

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

24
25
26

ORDER - 3