McGraw v. GEICO General Insurance Company

Filing 60

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle granting 53 Motion for Reconsideration. Previous ORDER (Dkt. 49) VACATED. (TG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 8 YOLANDA MCGRAW, Plaintiff, 9 10 v. CASE NO. C16-5876 BHS ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND VACATING PREVIOUS ORDER GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Defendant. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company’s (“GEICO”) motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 53). On February 27, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff Yolanda McGraw’s (“McGraw”) motion to remand. Dkt. 49. On March 9, 2017, GEICO filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the Court committed manifest errors of law in granting McGraw’s motion. Dkt. 53. On March 13, 2017, the Court requested a response from McGraw. Dkt. 57. On March 21, 2017, McGraw responded. Dkt. 57. On March 24, 2017, GEICO replied. Dkt. 58. 21 22 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND VACATING PREVIOUS ORDER - 1 1 While the Court’s reasoning relied on the reasonable interpretation of McGraw’s 2 complaint in light of the Court’s experience with this matter, the Court agrees with 3 GEICO that it must also consider other potential interpretations of the complaint when 4 resolving the issue of remand. After further development of the record and additional 5 consideration of McGraw’s motion, the Court GRANTS GEICO’s motion (Dkt. 53) and 6 VACATES its previous order (Dkt. 49). An amended order granting McGraw’s motion 7 will issue forthwith. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated this 18th day of April, 2017. A 10 11 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND VACATING PREVIOUS ORDER - 2

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?