Stone et al v. Government Employees Insurance Company et al

Filing 50

ORDER granting Defendant's 41 Motion for Reconsideration and Vacating Previous 35 Order on Motion to Remand, signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (*Case reopened)(GMR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 5 6 7 MEGAN STONE and CHRISTINE 8 CAROSI, Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 11 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 12 CASE NO. C16-5383BHS ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND VACATING PREVIOUS ORDER Defendants. 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Geico General Insurance 15 Company (“Geico”) motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 41).1 The Court has considered the 16 pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file 17 and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein. 18 19 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 20, 2016, Geico removed the action to this Court under the Class Action 20 Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Dkt. 2-1. 21 1 Stone named seven Geico-related insurers as defendants in her complaint. For 22 simplicity, the Court refers to all defendants as “Geico” in this order. ORDER - 1 1 On June 14, 2016, Plaintiffs Megan Stone (“Stone”) and Christine Carosi’s 2 (“Carosi”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) moved to remand. Dkt. 16. On July 28, 2016, the 3 Court granted the motion. Dkt. 35. On August 11, 2016, Geico moved for 4 reconsideration. Dkt. 41. On August 16, 2016, the Court requested a response and 5 renoted the motion. Dkt. 42. On August 26, 2016, Plaintiffs responded. Dkt. 46. On 6 September 2, 2016, Geico replied. Dkt. 48. 7 8 II. DISCUSSION Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h), 9 which provides: 10 11 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. 12 Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h). 13 In this case, Geico contends that the Court overlooked facts and committed a 14 manifest error of law. Upon reconsideration of the record and consideration of the 15 parties’ additional arguments on reconsideration, the Court agrees. While Plaintiffs have 16 a meritorious argument that Geico could have and should have raised its additional 17 arguments earlier, the Court favors just opinions based on the merits instead of relying on 18 procedural defaults. Moreover, the Court concludes that Geico is likely to prevail on 19 appeal of the order and reconsidering the issues based on the current record will conserve 20 the time and resources of all involved. Therefore, the Court grants Geico’s motion and 21 vacates its prior order. 22 ORDER - 2 1 2 III. ORDER Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Geico’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 3 41) is GRANTED and the Court’s prior order (Dkt. 35) is VACATED. The Court will 4 issue a new order forthwith. 5 Dated this 12th day of October, 2016. A 6 7 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 3

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?