Puget Sound Surgical Center v. Aetna Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 42

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 30 Motion for Extension of Time to file a Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to respond to ASD Plan's m otion to dismiss (Dkt. # 30 ). The court DENIES the open-ended extension Plaintiff requests, but GRANTS a one-week extension from November 27, 2017, to December 4, 2017. The court also DIRECTS the Clerk to change the noting date for ASD Plan's motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 27 ) from December 1, 2017, to December 8, 2017. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (TH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

PUGET SOUND SURGICAL
CENTER, P.S.,

11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14

v.
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

15

I.

ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN
EXTENSION TO FILE A
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants.

16

CASE NO. C17-1190JLR

17

INTRODUCTION

Before the court is Plaintiff Puget Sound Surgical Center, P.S.’s motion for an

18

extension of time to respond to Defendant Anchorage School District Active Employee

19

Open Choice PPO Medical Plan’s (“ASD Plan”) motion to dismiss. (MFE (Dkt. # 30);

20

see also MTD (Dkt. # 27).) The court has considered Plaintiff’s motion, the parties’

21

submissions in support of and opposition to the motion (see Resp. (Dkt. # 32); Reply

22

(Dkt. # 39)), the other relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully

ORDER - 1

1

advised, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion as explained more

2

fully herein.

3
4

II.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks an open-ended extension of time to respond to ASD Plan’s motion

5

to dismiss until some agreed date after all Defendants who intend to file motions to

6

dismiss have so filed or until “30 days after all [D]efendants have served an answer or

7

filed a responsive pleading.” (MFE at 2.) Plaintiff argues that granting its request would

8

mirror the court’s order granting Defendants Bank of America Health Care Plan,

9

Nordstrom, Inc. Class Plan, Starbucks Health Care Plan, and Costco Wholesale Health

10

Plan’s motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint until 21 days

11

after the last defendant is served. (See Order (Dkt. # 25).) Plaintiff’s motion also appears

12

to contemplate that it will file one unified response to all potential motions to dismiss

13

from all Defendants who decide to file such a motion. (See MFE at 2.) ASD Plan

14

opposes Plaintiff’s motion. (See Resp.)

15

The court declines to grant the open-ended extension Plaintiff requests for two

16

reasons. First, ASD Plan was not one of the defendants who requested an extension of

17

time to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint; and in that situation, Plaintiff agreed to the

18

requested extension, whereas here, ASD Plan has not so agreed. (See generally Resp.)

19

Second, ASD Plan moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint in part on grounds of lack of

20

personal jurisdiction. (See MTD at 9-15.) An argument based on lack of personal

21

jurisdiction is one that lends itself to the kind of unified response contemplated by

22

ORDER - 2

1

Plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, the court denies the open-ended extension requested by

2

Plaintiff.

3

Nevertheless, because some time has passed due to the parties’ dispute over the

4

timing of Plaintiff’s response, the court will grant Plaintiff a short, defined extension of

5

time to respond to ASD Plan’s motion to dismiss. ASD Plan’s motion is presently noted

6

for Friday, December 1, 2017. (See MTD at 1.) Under Local Rule LCR 7(d)(3),

7

Plaintiff’s response would be due on Monday, November 27, 2017. See Local Rules

8

W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3) (“Any opposition papers shall be filed and served not later than

9

the Monday before the noting date.”). The court will extend the noting date for ASD

10

Plan’s motion to dismiss from Friday, December 1, 2017, to Friday, December 8, 2017.

11

Extending the noting date for the motion also extends Plaintiff’s deadline to file a

12

response to Monday, December 4, 2017. See id. In addition, ASD Plan’s reply

13

memorandum is now due on Friday, December 8, 2017. See id. (“Any reply papers shall

14

be filed and served no later than the noting date.”).

15

Finally, the court notes that counsel’s tenor in discussing Plaintiff’s motion for an

16

extension of time does not comport with the court’s standard for the conduct of attorneys

17

who appear before it. (See Resp., see also Reply.) The motion before the court involved

18

a simple request for an extension of time. The rhetoric employed by both sides was

19

excessive, particularly given the issue before the court. As noted in the introduction to

20

the court’s Local Rules, “[t]he judges of this district expect a high degree of

21

professionalism from the lawyers practicing before them.” Local Rules W.D. Wash.,

22

Introduction. Counsel on both sides have failed to meet that standard in their briefing on

ORDER - 3

1

the present motion. The court anticipates that it will not need to admonish counsel again

2

concerning this issue during the course of this litigation.

3
4

III.

CONCLUSION

In sum, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s motion for an

5

extension of time to respond to ASD Plan’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 30). The court

6

DENIES the open-ended extension Plaintiff requests, but GRANTS a one-week

7

extension from November 27, 2017, to December 4, 2017. The court also DIRECTS the

8

Clerk to change the noting date for ASD Plan’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 27) from

9

December 1, 2017, to December 8, 2017.

10

Dated this 14th day of November, 2017.

11
12

A

13

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 4