State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Samrow et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 23 Defendant's Motion to Continue; denying 24 Defendant's Motion to Appoint Counsel; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 10/16/2014 (DN). (cc to pltf)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

10
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C14-5530 RBL
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
STAY AND TO APPOINT
COUNSEL

11
v.

[Dkt. #s 23 & 24]

12
FRANK SAMROW,
13
Defendant.
14
15

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Samrow’s Motion to Stay this

16 declaratory judgment action pending the resolution of the underlying lawsuit [Dkt. #23], and his
17 Motion for Court-appointed counsel [Dkt. #24].
18

State Farm insured Samrow’s personal vehicle, a Chevrolet Uplander. Samrow owned

19 Oasis, an LLC that provided pilot car services to trucking companies, including Landstar Inway.
20 Landstar required Oasis to indemnify it, and claims that Oasis demonstrated its ability to do so
21 by pointing to Samrow’s State Farm policy. Oasis referred Landstar to an unrelated1 company,
22
23

1

It is not clear on the limited record before the Court whether or why Landstar claims that
24 Oasis or Samrow caused the loss, or are liable for Kent’s apparent negligence.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO STAY AND TO
APPOINT COUNSEL - 1

1 CJ Pilot, to provide piloting services for an“over-height load. CJ Pilot’s driver, Kent, misjudged
”
2 the height of an overpass and Landstar’s truck collided with it.
3

Landstar sued Samrow, Oasis, and CJ Pilot to recover the damages to the overpass and

4 the load in state court. It sought to amend its complaint to assert a fraud claim against Samrow
5 for representing that his personal State Farm policy covered Oasis. The motion was denied and
6 Landstar’s claims against Samrow personally were dismissed on summary judgment. On appeal,
7 the case was remanded for further proceedings on the fraud claim.
8

State Farm brought this Declaratory Judgment action seeking a determination that its

9 policy does not obligate it to defend or indemnify Samrow from any of the remaining claims
10 against him in the state court action.
11

Samrow is pro se. He asks the Court to stay this action pending the resolution of the

12 underlying case, because it would “extremely hard on him to fight both cases simultaneously. He
”
13 also seeks a continuance of the (already passed) deadline for filing a Joint Status Report, and
14 asks the Court to appoint an attorney to represent him. Samrow claims that he cannot pay for an
15 attorney, as a result cannot find one.
16

State Farm is entitled to a prompt determination of its obligations to Samrow in the state

17 case, and this declaratory judgment action is the proper vehicle for obtaining it. It makes no
18 sense to await the outcome of that case before determining whether State Farm has any
19 obligation to defend Samrow in it. The Motion for a Stay pending resolution of the underlying
20 claim is DENIED.
21

This Court will, in exceptional circumstances, appoint an attorney to represent an

22 indigent plaintiff. No constitutional right to counsel exists for an indigent plaintiff in a civil case
23 unless the plaintiff may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dept. of
24

[DKT. #S 23 & 24] - 2

1 Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) gives the Court
2 discretion to appoint counsel for indigent litigants who are proceeding in forma pauperis. United
3 States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995).
4

The Court will appoint counsel only in “exceptional circumstances.” Id.; Wilborn v.

5 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). A finding of exceptional circumstances
6 requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the
7 plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.
8 Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (internal quotations omitted). These factors must be viewed together
9 before reaching a decision on whether to appoint counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Id.
10

This court has not ever appointed counsel for a civil defendant embroiled in commercial

11 litigation, and this case does not require the Court to address whether it might conceivably do so
12 in a very unusual case.
13

The Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED.

14

The Motion for a Continuance of the joint status report deadline is DENIED as State

15 Farm has already filed a JSR that will suffice. The parties are cautioned, however, that further
16 failures and refusals to comply with court orders on the part of any party represented by counsel
—
17 or not may result in sanctions.
—
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated this 16th day of October, 2014.

21

A

22

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20

23
24

[DKT. #S 23 & 24] - 3