Al-Jelaihawi v. Progressive Insurance Companies

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 27, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01855
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ALAA AREF AL-JELAIHAWI, CASE NO. 2:20-CV-1855-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 v. SUPPLEMENT 13 PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANIES, 14 Defendant. 15

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule MJR 16 13, the parties have consented to have this matter heard by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. 17 Dkt. 14. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Alaa Aref Al-Jelaihawi’s Motion for 18 “Leave of Court Supplemental Brief to Initial Complaint with Exhibits” (“Motion”) requesting 19 leave to supplement his complaint. Dkt. 25. After considering the relevant record, Plaintiff’s 20 Motion (Dkt. 25) is denied. 21 22 I. Background Plaintiff initiated this action on December 28, 2020, alleging claims of bad faith, breach 23 of contract, and negligence against Defendant Progressive Insurance Company. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff 24 1 contends Defendant required him to overpay for insurance, increased his prices over the span of 2 three years, and cancelled his policy after beginning an investigation. Id. Plaintiff states he could 3 not continue his trucking business. Id. 4 On March 28, 2021, the Court entered an Order Setting Trial, Pretrial Dates, and

5 Ordering Mediation (“Scheduling Order”). Dkt. 19. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the 6 discovery period closed on December 20, 2021 and the date to file dispositive deadlines expired 7 on January 18, 2022. Id. Trial is set for April 25, 2022. See Docket. 8 Plaintiff filed the pending Motion on December 15, 2021. Dkt. 25. Defendant filed a 9 response stating it opposes the Motion. Dkt. 26. However, if the Motion is granted, Defendant 10 requests the Court reopen discovery and extend the trial and pretrial dates. Id. 11 II. Discussion 12 In the Motion, Plaintiff requests to “supplement” his Complaint and states he is not 13 amending his Complaint. Dkt. 25. Plaintiff seeks to add additional facts, claims, and documents 14 to his Complaint. Id.

15 “On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a 16 supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the 17 date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (emphasis added). It does not 18 appear Plaintiff seeks to supplement his complaint pursuant to Rule 15(d) by adding events that 19 occurred after the date of the pleading. See Dkt. 25. The additional factual allegations and 20 documents attached to the Motion are primarily related to a period of time prior to filing this 21 action. Id. Plaintiff appears to raise a spoliation argument and has submitted documents related to 22 this “claim.” Id. at 30-35. This, however, is a discovery dispute, not a claim for relief. Further, 23 Rule 15(d) supplementation does not allow the introduction of “separate, distinct and new causes

24 1 of action.” Planned Parenthood of S. Arizona v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) 2 (internal quotation omitted). As Plaintiff is not alleging new facts related to the claims in this 3 case that occurred after the date of the Complaint, Plaintiff has not shown supplementation of his 4 Complaint is proper.

5 While Plaintiff specifically stated he is not attempting to amend his Complaint, the Court 6 finds the Motion is more consistent with a motion to amend. However, even if the Motion was 7 construed as a motion to amend, the motion fails to comply with Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 15. 8 Under LCR 15, a party seeking leave to amend a pleading must “attach a copy of the proposed 9 amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion[.]” The party must also “indicate on the proposed 10 amended pleading how it differs from the pleading that it amends by bracketing or striking 11 through the text to be deleted and underlining or highlighting the text to be added.” Plaintiff has 12 not provided an amended complaint that complies with LCR 15. Therefore, the Court declines 13 grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 14 III. Conclusion

15 The Court finds Plaintiff has not shown supplementation of his Complaint is proper. 16 Further, Plaintiff has not complied with LCR 15 and therefore the Court declines to grant him 17 leave to amend. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 25) is denied. 18 Dated this 27th day of January, 2022. 19 A 20 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24