Cherkin et al v. GEICO General Insurance Company et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 15 Motion to Remand. Per LCR 3(i), case will be remanded 14 days from the date of this Order, on 10/10/2019. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones.(MW)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

EMILY B. CHERKIN and BENJAMIN
GITENSTEIN,

10
11
12
13
14
15

v.
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign insurer; JACLYN
SEIFERT and JOHN DOE SEIFERT; and
LAWRENCE H. BORK and JANE DOE
BORK, and their marital community,

17

19

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO REMAND

Defendants.

16

18

Case No. 2:18-cv-00839-RAJ

Plaintiffs,

I.

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Dkt. # 15. For the
reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.

20

II. BACKGROUND

21

This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 27, 2014.

22

Dkt. #1-2 at ¶ 4.2. After settlement of their claims against the at-fault driver, Plaintiffs

23

requested that Defendant GEICO pay benefits pursuant to their underinsured motorist

24

(“UIM”) policy. During the course of the investigation of the plaintiffs’ UIM claim, two

25

GEICO employees, Defendants Jaclyn Seifert and Lawrence Bork, worked on the

26

Plaintiffs’ claim as adjusters. See, e.g., Dkt. ##1-2 at ¶¶ 1.3, 1.4, 5.11, 5.13. After GEICO

27

refused to pay any benefits pursuant to Plaintiffs’ UIM policy, Plaintiffs initiated an action

28

ORDER – 1

1

in the King County Superior Court on May 2, 2018. Id. at 17.

2

Defendants filed a notice of removal on June 11, 2018. Dkt. # 1. Defendants then

3

filed Motion to Dismiss Defendants Jaclyn Seifert and Lawrence Bork on June 15, 2018.

4

Dkt. # 5. Plaintiffs responded to the motion and Defendants filed a reply. See Dkt. ## 9-

5

12. On December 27, 2018, the Court entered an order denying Defendants’ Motion to

6

Dismiss and ordering Defendants to Show Cause “why this case should not be remanded

7

to state court.” Dkt. # 13. Specifically, the Court noted that the Washington Court of

8

Appeals in Keodalah v. Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Wn. App. 2d 31 (2018), held that insurance

9

adjusters can be individually liable for bad faith and CPA claims. Id. at 40–43. Plaintiffs

10

bring bad faith and CPA claims against all Defendants. Given the conclusion that Seifert

11

and Bork should not be dismissed as Defendants in this matter, the Court stated that case

12

lacks the complete diversity of citizenship required for federal jurisdiction and issued an

13

order to show cause as to why this case should not be remanded to state court. On April 4,

14

2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which is currently before the Court. Dkt. # 15.

15

III. DISCUSSION

16

Removal jurisdiction is strictly construed in favor of remand and any doubt as to the

17

right of removal must be resolved in favor of remand. Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co.,

18

425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 2005). The party seeking a federal forum has the burden of

19

establishing that federal jurisdiction is proper. Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d

20

676, 682-83 (9th Cir. 2006). The removing party must carry this burden not only at the

21

time of removal, but also in opposition to a motion for remand. See Moore-Thomas v.

22

Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). Pursuant to the “well-pleaded

23

complaint rule,” federal-question jurisdiction exists “only when a federal question is

24

presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v.

25

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

26

Defendants assert that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter based on diversity

27

of citizenship of the parties. Dkt. # 1. The Court has diversity jurisdiction over civil actions

28

ORDER – 2

1

where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the case is between citizens of

2

different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiffs and Defendants Seifert and Bork are all

3

citizens of Washington. As a result, the requirements for diversity jurisdiction have not

4

been met. As they did in their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that Seifert and Bork

5

are dispensable parties and thus should be dropped under Rule 21. Dkt. # 16 at 2.

6

Defendants argue that there is no basis on which to distinguish Seifert’s and Bork’s

7

liabilities separate and apart from GEICO because they are alleged to be representatives of

8

GEICO on Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. Id. at 3. (“Plaintiffs do not allege facts that would

9

allow a finding of violations against the individual employees but not find against GEICO

10

as stated above, there are no allegations that Seifert or Bork acted outside the scope of their

11

employment.”).

12

The Court again concludes that Seifert and Bork are not dispensable parties.

13

Plaintiffs brought this case against them based on a viable state law. See Keodalah v.

14

Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Wn. App. 2d 31 (2018) (holding that insurance adjusters can be

15

individually liable for bad faith and CPA claims). Plaintiffs bring bad faith and CPA claims

16

against all Defendants. Accordingly, there is no diversity of citizenship and this Court

17

lacks jurisdiction over this action.
IV. CONCLUSION

18
19
20

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. Dkt. # 15.
The Court hereby REMANDS this case to King County Superior Court.

21
22

DATED this 26th day of September, 2019.

A

23
24

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

ORDER – 3