Hutchinson v. Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Filing
15
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 10 Motion to Remand case to Snohomish County Superior Court. Plaintiff's request for costs is GRANTED. No later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a supplemental motion for fees and costs in this Court, appending the evidence necessary to support its request. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. Per LCR 3(I), case will be remanded 14 days from the date of this Order, on 6/28/2018. (PM)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
5
6
7
HAROLD L. HUTCHINSON, JR.,
9
10
Case No. C18-0656 RSM
Plaintiff,
8
vs.
ORDER OF REMAND
GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
11
Defendant.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand this case to
Snohomish County Superior Court. Dkt. #10. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s removal was
untimely, and seeks an award of fees related to this motion. Id. Defendant opposes the motion,
arguing that the removal was timely, and that there was a reasonable basis for removal even if it is
19
ultimately remanded. Dkt. #12. For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees that remand is
20
warranted in this action and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.
21
22
23
24
25
II. BACKGROUND
This matter involves an insurance coverage dispute. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff initially served a
Summons and Complaint, along with discovery requests, on the Washington State Insurance
Commissioner on February 28, 2018. Dkt. #11, Ex. 1. The Office of the Insurance Commissioner
26
subsequently forwarded the Summons and Complaint to Defendant, which was received on March
27
5, 2018. Dkt. #13 at ¶ 3 and Ex. A. thereto.
28
ORDER - 1
Defendant then attempted to file a Notice of Removal with the Snohomish County Superior
1
2
Court on or about March 22, 2018. Dkt. #13 at ¶ 4. However, the filing was rejected by the
3
Snohomish County Superior Court on the grounds that the case had not been filed. Id. As a result,
4
defense counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, asking that he forward the case number once the
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Complaint was filed. Dkt. #13, Ex. B. Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that he would do so. Id., Ex.
C.
On April 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Summons and Complaint, along with an Amended
Complaint, in the Snohomish County Superior Court. Dkt. #13 at ¶ 8 and Ex. E thereto. Defense
counsel received notice of the filing on May 2, 2018. Id. at ¶ 9 and Ex. F thereto.
On May 4, 2018, Defendant filed Notices of Removal in both federal and state court. Id.
at ¶ 10 and Ex. F thereto. The instant motion followed.
13
14
15
16
III. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
When a case is filed in state court, removal is proper if the Complaint raises a federal
17
question or where there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in
18
controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). It is presumed, however, “‘that a
19
cause lies outside [the] limited jurisdiction [of the federal courts] and the burden of establishing
20
21
the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.’” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d
1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th
22
23
24
Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994)) (alterations in original). This Court must order remand if there is any defect which causes
25
federal jurisdiction to fail. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The removal statutes are construed restrictively,
26
and any doubts about removability are resolved in favor of remanding the case to state court.
27
28
ORDER - 2
1
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). On a motion to remand, the removing
2
defendant faces a strong presumption against removal, and bears the burden of establishing that
3
removal was proper by a preponderance of evidence. Id. at 567; Sanchez v. Monumental Life
4
Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403-04 (9th Cir. 1996). However, this Court lacks discretion to remand
5
6
7
8
9
10
a case to the state court if the case was properly removed. Carpenters S. Cal. Admin. Corp. v.
Majestic Hous., 743 F.2d 1341, 1343 (9th Cir. 1984), abrogated in part on other grounds,
Southern Cal. IBEW-NECA Trust Funds v. Standard Indus. Elec. Co., 247 F.3d 920, 924 n.6 (9th
Cir. 2001).
B. Time for Removal
11
In the instant matter, Plaintiff concedes that diversity jurisdiction would lie in this Court,
12
but argues that Defendant’s removal was untimely. Dkt. #10 at 2-3. Under 28 USC § 1446(b),
13
14
15
16
17
18
“[t]he notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt
by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting for the claim
for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, . . .”. Plaintiff asserts that because the
Notice of Removal was filed more than 30 days after he served his Summons and Complaint on the
Washington Insurance Commissioner, this matter must be remanded to state court. Dkt. #10.
19
Defendant, relying on Washington Rule of Civil Procedure 3(a), argues that the initial service
20
is void because Plaintiff did not file his action within 14 days of Defendant’s demand that he file the
21
Summons and Complaint in the Superior Court. See CR 3(a) (“Upon written demand by any other
22
party, the plaintiff instituting the action shall pay the filing fee and file the summons and complaint
23
24
25
26
27
within 14 days after service of the demand or the service shall be void.”). As a result, Defendant
asserts that the service date of the Amended Complaint controls, which was April 30, 2018, and
therefore it timely filed Notices of Removal within 30 days of that date. Dkt. #12. The Court
disagrees with Defendant.
28
ORDER - 3
1
First, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant did not make a written demand to file as
2
required by the Washington State Civil Rules. See Dkt. #14 at 1-3. As proof of its demand, Defendant
3
attaches an email to Plaintiff’s counsel dated March 23, 2018. Dkt. #13, Ex. B. That entirety of
4
that email states:
5
Gary,
6
7
8
9
Per our conversation, our office represents Garrison Property and Casualty
Insurance Company in the Hutchinson matter. My contact information is
located below in the signature block. Moving forward, if you could also
include Robert McLay and Joshua Kastan on any other correspondence (cced here), I would greatly appreciate it.
11
It is my understanding that this Complaint has not yet been filed, but that your
office intends to do so. If you could forward us the case number as soon as
the Complaint is filed, we will proceed with filing our responsive pleading.
12
If you have any other questions, please feel free to let us know.
10
13
14
Id. Nothing in that email indicates a demand that the Summons and Complaint be filed or that
the filing fee be paid. It does not reference the relevant Civil Rule. At most, the email requests
15
16
17
that the case number be forwarded as soon as the case is filed. Further, one week later, defense
counsel followed up regarding discovery. Dkt. #13, Ex. D. He again noted his understanding
18
that the Complaint had not yet been filed. Id. Nothing in that email contained a demand to file.
19
Instead, defense counsel simply stated that his client would not respond to discovery until 30
20
days after the Complaint was filed. Id. Therefore, Civil Rule 3(a) was never triggered.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Likewise, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant did not serve a demand as
required by the Washington State Civil Rules. As Plaintiff notes, absent an agreement to allow
service via email between the parties, email is insufficient to accomplish service. Indeed,
Washington Civil Rule 5(b)(1) provides:
Whenever under these rules service is required or permitted to be made upon
a party represented by an attorney the service shall be made upon the attorney
unless service directly upon the party is ordered by the court. Service upon
28
ORDER - 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
the attorney or upon a party shall be made by delivering a copy to the party
or the party’s attorney or by mailing it to the party’s or the attorney’s at his
last known address or, if no address is known, filing with the clerk of the
court an affidavit of attempt to serve. Delivery of a copy within this rule
means: handing it to the attorney or to the party; or leaving it at the party’s or
the attorney’s office with a clerk or other person in charge thereof; or, if there
is no one in charge, leaving it in a conspicuous place therein; or, if the office
is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at the person’s
dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein.
7
CR 5(b)(1). Defendant’s email was not served in accordance with this Rule. Therefore, CR 3(a)
8
was never triggered.
9
10
11
12
For these reasons, the Court finds the date of service that triggered the time for removal
was February 28, 2018 – the date Plaintiff served a Summons and Complaint on the Washington
State Insurance Commissioner. Defendant did not remove the matter until May 4, 2018, which
13
was 65 days after service on Defendant. See Dkt. #1. Therefore, the removal was untimely and
14
this matter must be remanded to the Superior Court.
15
16
17
18
19
20
C. Request for Attorney Fees and Costs
Plaintiff has requested his attorney’s fees in connection with his motion to remand. Dkt.
#10 at 3-4. In an Order remanding a case, this Court “may require payment of just costs and any
actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c). “Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only
21
where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin
22
v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 126 S. Ct. 704, 711, 163 L. Ed. 2d 547, 555 (2005). In
23
exercising its discretion to award fees under section 1447(c), this Court must consider “the desire
24
25
to deter removals sought for the purpose of prolonging litigation and imposing costs on the
opposing party, while not undermining Congress’ basic decision to afford defendants a right to
26
27
remove as a general matter, when the statutory criteria are satisfied.” See id.
28
ORDER - 5
1
In view of the considerations highlighted in Martin, the Court finds an award of costs
2
against Defendant for Plaintiff’s expenses in remanding this action to be a necessary or just result
3
under section 1447(c). Defendant cannot genuinely believe that its attorney’s informal email to
4
Plaintiff’s counsel, confirming that the Complaint had not been filed and requesting that the case
5
6
7
8
number be forwarded when it was filed, constituted a demand under Civil Rule 3(a). Nor can it
genuinely believe that the “demand” was properly served. Moreover, none of defense counsel’s
email correspondence indicated an intent to remove. Instead, defense counsel stated it would file
9
its “responsive pleading” and “respond to the discovery that was attached to the Complaint” after
10
the Complaint was filed. Dkt. #13, Exs. B and D. Thus, the Court finds no objectively reasonable
11
basis for seeking removal. Accordingly, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the costs associated
12
with remanding the case back to state court.
13
14
15
16
17
18
IV.
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant’s opposition thereto, the Reply in support
thereof, along with the Declarations and Exhibits and the remainder of the record, the Court
hereby finds and ORDERS:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. #10) is GRANTED and this case is remanded
19
20
CONCLUSION
to Snohomish County Superior Court.
2. Plaintiff’s request for costs is GRANTED. No later than fourteen (14) days from
21
the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a supplemental motion for fees and costs
22
in this Court, appending the evidence necessary to support its request. Plaintiff
23
shall note the motion for two Fridays after the date it is filed. Defendant shall
24
respond no later than the Monday prior to the noting date, and shall limit its
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 6
response only to the issue of the reasonableness of the fees and costs sought by
1
Plaintiff. No Reply brief shall be filed
2
3
4
3. This matter is now CLOSED.
DATED this 14th of June 2018.
5
A
6
7
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?