Stone et al v. Government Employees Insurance Company et al

Filing 159

ORDER denying 139 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(TG)

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

6
7
8

MEGAN STONE and CHRISTINE
CAROSI,

9

Plaintiffs,
v.

10
11

CASE NO. C16-5383 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Megan Stone (“Stone”) and

14
15
16
17
18

Christine Carosi’s (“Carosi”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) motion for reconsideration (Dkt.
139). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the
motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated
herein.
I.

19
20
21
22

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. Dkt. 112. On September
19, 2017, the Court denied the motion. Dkt. 135. On October 3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 139. On October 5, 2017, the Court requested a

ORDER - 1

1

response and renoted the motion. Dkt. 141. Specifically, the Court requested a response

2

only to Plaintiffs’ argument that the Court committed manifest error by concluding that

3

Plaintiffs could recover an award of over $1.34 million in attorney’s fees under Olympic

4

Steamship. Id. On October 13, 2017, GEICO responded. Dkt. 154. On October 20

5

2017, Plaintiffs replied and submitted a declaration in support of their reply. Dkts. 155,

6

156. On October 25. 2017, GEICO filed a surreply requesting that the Court strike the

7

declaration. Dkt. 158.

8
9

II.

DISCUSSION

As a threshold matter, the Court must address what it has considered in addressing

10

Plaintiffs’ motion. First, the Court “may limit briefing to particular issues or points

11

raised by the motion.” Local Rules, W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(3). Although the Court

12

requested a response to one specific issue, GEICO submitted briefing on the calculation

13

of total damages and attorney’s fees. See Dkt. 154. Thus, the Court strikes and did not

14

consider pages five through eleven of GEICO’s response because these pages address the

15

issue of total damages.

16

Second, GEICO argues that Plaintiffs improperly submitted evidence in support of

17

their reply. Dkt. 158. The Court agrees. Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th

18

Cir.1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 808 (1997). Thus, the Court will not consider Plaintiffs’

19

additional evidence.

20

Regarding the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that

21

the Court’s conclusion is manifest error. The Ninth Circuit instructs district courts to

22

evaluate CAFA jurisdiction based on “the reality of what is at stake in the litigation.”

ORDER - 2

1

Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1198 (9th Cir. 2015). “[T]his

2

peculiar version of reality remains perpetually frozen at the time of removal.” Salcido v.

3

Evolution Fresh, Inc., No. 14-CV-9223SVW-PLA, 2016 WL 79381, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan.

4

6, 2016). At the time of removal, Plaintiffs asserted a claim for denial of coverage, which

5

opens the door for the recovery of attorney’s fees under Olympic Steamship Co. v.

6

Centennial Ins. Co., 117 Wn.2d 37 (1991) (en banc). While Plaintiffs are correct that the

7

Court could easily dispose of any coverage issue or, at the conclusion of the matter, limit

8

such fees, the potential for an award of fees at the time of removal are all the fees

9

associated with this highly contested class action. As such, an award of $1.34 million for

10

an attorney with an hourly rate of $900 and with potential multipliers is arguably

11

reasonable. Therefore, the Court stands by its conclusion that the amount in controversy

12

exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.

13
14
15
16

III.

ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration
(Dkt. 139) is DENIED.
Dated this 11th day of December, 2017.

A

17
18

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3