Continental Casualty Company et al v. C.D. Stimson Company

Filing 50

ORDER granting Defendant C.D. Stimson Co.'s 44 Motion for Voluntary Dismissal; denying Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Co. and American Casualty Co.'s 45 Motion for Entry of Declaratory Judgment, terminating the 37 38 Motions in Limine. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY
AND AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY
OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. C17-235-RSM
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

v.

14
15
16

C.D. STIMSON CO.,
Defendant.

17

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant C.D. Stimson Co.’s Motion for

18

Voluntary Dismissal, Dkt #44, and Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Co. and American Casualty

19
20
21

Co.’s Motion for Entry of Declaratory Judgment, Dkt. #45.
The only claims remaining before the Court are Defendant’s counterclaims. See Dkts.

22

#34 and #36. Defendant moves to voluntarily dismiss its counterclaims without prejudice

23

pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) and (c), stating that it has “withdrawn its tender to Plaintiffs of claims

24
25
26
27

for reimbursement under the insurance policies by letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted
concurrently with this motion.” Dkt. #44 at 2. Plaintiffs do not oppose this Motion. Dkt. #46.
The Court finds that dismissal of Defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice is appropriate.

28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT - 1

1

Plaintiffs “move for entry of Judgment in their favor,” without further legal argument,

2

attaching a proposed judgment stating that Plaintiffs “have no duty to pay as defense expenses

3

or as indemnity the sums [Defendant] submitted to [Plaintiffs] and for which [Defendant]

4

sought reimbursement… that were the subject of this action.” Dkt. #45-1. In Response,

5
6
7

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs “are belatedly trying to amend their complaint to add a new
claim for declaratory relief and seek summary judgment on that new claim, all in the guise of a

8

motion for entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(d).” Dkt. #48 at 1.

9

Defendant argues that the Court cannot enter Plaintiffs’ requested judgment for procedural

10
11
12

reasons, and also because the withdrawal of its tender to Plaintiffs means there is no longer an
actual controversy, and thus the Court no longer has jurisdiction over a claim for declaratory

13

relief. Id. at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (expressly requiring an “actual controversy”); United

14

States Nat’l Bank of Ore. V. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 445, 113 S. Ct. 2173,

15

124 L. Ed. 2d 402 (1993)). On Reply, Plaintiffs argue that their Motion is simply trying to

16

clarify that they have no duty to pay the tendered expenses whether they are classified as

17
18
19

defense or indemnity expenses. See Dkt. #49 at 2–3.
The Court agrees with Defendant’s analysis.

Given the Court’s prior rulings,

20

Defendant’s unopposed Motion for voluntary dismissal, and Defendant’s withdrawal of tender,

21

there is no longer an actual controversy for the Court to have jurisdiction over. Plaintiffs are

22
23
24

barred from seeking an expanded judgment on a claim beyond what was pled or argued at
summary judgment. Their request now for judgment in their favor, filed at this late stage,

25

without argument (until the Reply brief) and simply as a bare judgment, is procedurally

26

improper and would not be granted in any event. This Motion will be denied.

27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Having reviewed the relevant briefing, attached declarations, and the remainder of the
record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
1) Defendant C.D. Stimson Co.’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, Dkt #44, is
GRANTED.
2) Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Co. and American Casualty Co.’s Motion for Entry
of Declaratory Judgment, Dkt. #45, is DENIED.

8

3) All pending Motions are terminated.

9

4) This case is CLOSED.

10
11
12
13
14
15

DATED this 1 day of April 2019.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT - 3