Schaefer et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's 8 MOTION to Remand to Circuit Court; denying as moot Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.s 3 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying Defendant State Farm Fire and Casu alty Co.s 5 MOTION to Stay; directing that this case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia; directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the Courts docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 10/10/2018. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
CHAD W. SCHAEFER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-00474

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Chad W. Schaefer’s (“Schaefer”) motion to remand.1
(ECF No. 8.) As stated in the second footnote of the Court’s memorandum opinion and order
entered on this date on the motion to remand in Pettit v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
et al, the briefing in the present motion to remand are virtually identical to the briefing in the
Pettit.2 Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the reasons discussed in that memorandum opinion and
order, GRANTS Schaefer’s motion to remand, (ECF No. 8), and REMANDS the case to the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to
remove this matter from the Court’s docket.

Also pending before the Court is Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.’s (“State Farm”) motions to stay and
dismiss. (ECF Nos. 3, 5.) As this memorandum opinion and order is remanding the case to the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County, West Virginia, the Court DENIES AS MOOT these motions. (ECF Nos. 3, 5.)
2
The Court notes that the dates on which the statute of limitations could have begun to run are different in the present
case than in Pettit. In the present case, Schaefer was provided the UM coverage forms in December 2009 and
therefore, State Farm argues that that Schaefer’s UTPA claim expired in December 2010. (See ECF No. 14 at 7.)
However, Schaefer argues, as did the plaintiff in Pettit, that that his UTPA claim against Defendant Debbie Clem
(“Clem”) was tolled by the discovery rule due to State Farm and Clem’s alleged misrepresentations. (See ECF No.
21 at 4–6.) As the factual scenarios and arguments are the same in both cases, the Court’s analysis and ruling in Pettit
applies to the present case.
1

IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

October 10, 2018