McGraw v. GEICO General Insurance Company

Filing 67

ORDER denying 63 Motion to Stay; granting 64 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages & denying 65 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (MGC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8
9
10
11

YOLANDA MCGRAW,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

CASE NO. C16-5876 BHS
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
STAY, GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES,
AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant GEICO General Insurance
Company’s (“GEICO”) motion to stay enforcement of remand order (Dkt. 63), motion
for leave to file excess pages for motion for reconsideration of remand order (Dkt. 64),
and motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 65)
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 April 18, 2017, the Court granted the motion for
reconsideration and issued an amended order granting McGraw’s motion for remand.

22

ORDER - 1

1

Dkts. 60, 61. On May 1, 2016, GEICO filed the instant motions. Dkts. 63–65. The

2

Court grants the motion for leave to file excess pages and will consider GEICO’s over-

3

length motion for reconsideration.

4
5
6
7

Motions for reconsideration are governed by the Local Rule of Procedure 7(h),
which provides:
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.

8
Local Rules, W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h).
9
In this case, GEICO asserts that the Court made two manifest errors of law in the
10
amended motion to remand. First, GEICO argues that the Court erred by concluding that
11
a fully litigated class action would result in fees in excess of $1,634,700. Dkt. 65 at 8–
12
10. GEICO asserts that this represents an award of 48% of damages alleged in the
13
complaint, which exceeds the standard benchmark for awarding fees in class actions
14
settlements. The problem with GEICO’s argument is that the benchmark is for
15
settlements and not for fully litigated class action cases, which more accurately represents
16
the potential total damages. See Dkt. 25 at 3 (GEICO citing numerous cases for the
17
proposition that “the standard of proof is what the ‘potential’ damages might be or what
18
the ‘stakes’ of the lawsuit might be”). Thus, GEICO has failed to show that it is a
19
manifest error of any current law to conclude that a fully litigated class action could
20
result in fees in excess $1,634,700.
21
22

ORDER - 2

1

GEICO also finds error in the fact that the Court has forced GEICO into the

2

position of arguing for this award of fees within 30 days of receiving the complaint.

3

Ironically, GEICO did assert the position it now claims is inconceivable. McGraw v.

4

Geico Gen. Ins. Co., C15-5336BHS (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. 17 at 10 (“Indeed, it is likely that

5

fees will be in the millions of dollars for a case like this one.”). The Court agrees with

6

GEICO’s original position that fees could potentially be in the millions of dollars for a

7

case like this one. Therefore, the Court denies GEICO’s motion on this issue.

8

Second, GEICO argues that the Court improperly allowed McGraw to limit her

9

claims post-removal. Dkt. 65 at 10. GEICO, however, aptly recognizes that the Court

10

reached an alternative conclusion in the event that this case was a claim dispute as

11

opposed to a coverage dispute. Even if the conclusion is a manifest error of law, it is an

12

alternative conclusion. Therefore, the Court DENIES GEICO’s motion for

13

reconsideration and DENIES GEICO’s motion to stay remand.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated this 16th day of May, 2017.

16
17

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3