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)

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