Hessler v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 GREGORY HESSLER, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05904-RJB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO 12 v. REASSIGN OR TRANSFER CASE 13 PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Reassign or Transfer 17 Case. Dkt. 10. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to 18 the motions and the file herein. 19 The Plaintiff filed this putative class action on October 20, 2022, asserting breach of 20 contract claims relating to underinsured motorists property damage provisions in Defendant’s 21 insurance contracts and its alleged failure to pay for the diminished value of damaged vehicles. 22 Dkt. 1-1. On November 22, 2022, the Defendant removed this case from Pierce County, 23 Washington Superior Court. Dkt. 1. 24 1 On November 28, 2022, the Defendant filed a Notice of Related case, indicating that this 2 case is potentially related to cases currently pending or formerly pending in the U.S. District 3 Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma before the Honorable Benjamin H. 4 Settle: Mohammed M. Assaf v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Case Number 3:19-cv- 5 06209-BHS (“Assaf”) and Kleinsasser v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. and Progressive Max Ins.

6 Co., No. 3:17-cv-05499-BHS (“Kleinsasser”). Judge Settle declined to take this case as a related 7 case. 8 On December 13, 2022, the Defendant filed the instant motion to transfer this case to 9 Judge Settle. Dkt. 10. The Defendant argues that the cases are similar and should be handled by 10 a single judge familiar with the facts and law at issue in this case. Id. 11 DISCUSSION 12 Although the Plaintiff has filed a motion challenging this Court’s jurisdiction, the motion 13 to reassign the case is an intra-district transfer, which is an administrative action. Assaf, Dkt. 21 14 at 1. A decision on this motion is permissible. Id. This court has “broad discretion regarding

15 the assignment or reassignment of cases.” Badea v. Cox, 931 F.3d 573, 575 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 The motion (Dkt. 10) should be denied. There is no basis to transfer the case. There are 17 no overlapping plaintiffs in this case and in Assaf or Kleinsasser. The Defendant in this case is a 18 different than the defendants in the other two cases. While the issues are similar, judges in this 19 court often consider similar issues. Also, Judge Settle’s decision binds this decision. The 20 Motion to Reassign or Transfer Case (Dkt. 10) should be denied. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 23 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 24 1 Dated this 19th day of January, 2023. A 2

3 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24