Hawthorne v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, Oklahoma Surety Company

Filing 38

ORDER denying without prejudice to refiling at a later date Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting Defendant's 30 Motion for Relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

PATRICIA S. HAWTHORNE, individually
and as assignee of Oklahoma Court Services,
Inc.,
Case No. C16-1948RSL
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

v.
MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY
COMPANY, OKLAHOMA SURETY
COMPANY, an Oklahoma Insurance
Company,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR RELIEF UNDER
RULE 56(d)

Defendant.

16
17

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Patricia S. Hawthorne’s motion for partial

18

summary judgment (Dkt. # 24), and on defendant Oklahoma Surety Company’s request for relief

19

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (Dkt. # 30). Having considered the parties’ briefing and the

20

remainder of the record, the Court finds as follows.

21

On November 23, 2016, acting in her individual capacity and as assignee of various

22

insurance claims, plaintiff filed this action in King County Superior Court against Oklahoma

23

Surety Company for bad faith, violation of Washington’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, and breach

24

of the contractual duties to defend, settle, and indemnify. Dkt. # 1-1. On December 21, 2016,

25

defendant removed this case to federal court, Dkt. # 1, and shortly thereafter moved to dismiss

26

the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, Dkt. # 9. That motion is still pending before this Court.

27

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR RELIEF UNDER RULE 56(d) - 1

28

1

On February 16, 2016, plaintiff filed this motion for partial summary judgment. Dkt.

2

# 24. Plaintiff seeks a ruling that, as a matter of law, defendant – an insurance company –

3

breached its contractual duty to defend its insured in a lawsuit filed in King County Superior

4

Court, and that this breach constitutes bad faith.

5

On March 6, 2017, defendant filed both an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for partial

6

summary judgment, Dkt. # 27, and a motion for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The

7

motion for relief seeks relief from plaintiff’s motion until after a ruling on defendant’s pending

8

motion to dismiss or, if that motion is denied, after the close of discovery, Dkt. # 30. At this

9

time, discovery is scheduled to be completed by October 8, 2017. See Dkt. # 17.

10

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides that if a “nonmovant shows by affidavit or

11

declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition,

12

the court may . . . defer considering the motion [for summary judgment] or deny it . . . .” Rule

13

56(d) “provides a device for litigants to avoid summary judgment when they have not had

14

sufficient time to develop affirmative evidence.” United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314

15

F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002). To obtain relief under Rule 56(d), a party must show “(1) that

16

they have set forth in affidavit form the specific facts that they hope to elicit from further

17

discovery, (2) that the facts sought exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are ‘essential’ to

18

resist the summary judgment motion.” State of California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th

19

Cir. 1998).

20

An attorney for defendant filed a declaration and several exhibits in support of

21

defendant’s request for Rule 56(d) relief. Dkt. ## 31, 37. These filings make clear that summary

22

judgment is inappropriate at this time. First of all, consideration of plaintiff’s motion for

23

summary judgment before resolution of defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal

24

jurisdiction would be premature. Next, if plaintiff’s case survives that motion to dismiss (and if

25

the existence of a related coverage action in Oklahoma state court does not otherwise compel

26
27
28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR RELIEF UNDER RULE 56(d) - 2

1

dismissal or stay of this action), defendant will need to respond to plaintiff’s amended complaint.

2

Moreover, discovery would be needed to clarify several fact issues that are essential to the

3

resolution of plaintiff’s bad faith claim – specifically, the relationships between the parties and

4

the other insurance entities involved in this case, and the circumstances of the denial of

5

coverage. Defendant has asserted that it intends to depose employees of the insured entity in

6

addition to conducting written discovery. Dkt. ## 31, 37. These facts are essential to allow the

7

government to oppose summary judgment. See Campbell, 138 F.3d at 779. Defendant has met

8

the standards to obtain relief under Rule 56(d).

9
10

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. # 24) is

11

DENIED without prejudice to refiling at a later date, after the parties have had an opportunity to

12

conduct discovery. Defendant’s motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (Dkt. # 30) is

13

GRANTED.

14
15

DATED this 4th day of April, 2017.

16
17
18

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR RELIEF UNDER RULE 56(d) - 3