Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Fite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA METROPOLITAN GROUP CASE NO. C20-5697 BHS INSURANCE COMPANY, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, AND WITHDRAWING REFERRAL v. AUSTIN FITE, et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s (“MetLife”) motion to consolidate. Dkt. 8. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein. I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On July 9, 2020, Defendant Austin Fite (“Fite”) filed a complaint against MetLife in Pierce County Superior Court for the State of Washington. Cause No. 20-5819-BHS- MAT, Dkt. 9-4. Fite alleged (1) damages from a motor vehicle/pedestrian accident, (2) that his parents, Tina and Brian Fite, had a policy with MetLife, (3) that he submitted a claim under his parents’ policy, and (4) that MetLife denied the claim. Id. Fite asserted claims for breach of contract and extra-contractual violations. Id. On July 13, 2020, Fite

filed an amended complaint adding additional extra-contractual claims. Id., Dkt. 1-1. On July 17, 2020, MetLife filed the complaint in this action seeking declaratory relief that it owes no duty to indemnify Fite. Dkt. 1. On August 13, 2020, MetLife removed Fite’s complaint to this Court. Cause No. 20-5819-BHS-MAT, Dkt. 1. The case was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler, but the parties did not consent to the assignment. Id., Dkts. 4, 8. The

Court then assigned the case to the undersigned and automatically referred it to Judge Theiler. Id., Dkt. 8. On October 1, 2020, MetLife filed the instant motion seeking to consolidate the two cases. Dkt. 8. On October 15, 2020, Fite responded. Dkt. 9. On October 23, 2020, MetLife replied. Dkt. 13.

“If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). In determining whether to consolidate, a court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United

States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). In this case, MetLife moves to consolidate the two cases arguing that there is considerable overlap in the two cases. The Court agrees because Fite’s breach of contract claim and MetLife’s declaratory relief claim are identical. Although Fite disagrees that the maters are similar, he fails to provide any argument to support his position. Dkt. 9 at 3. Instead, he argues that the cases should be consolidated under Judge Theiler under the

first-to-file rule and to prevent improper judge shopping. Id. at 4–5. Fite’s concerns stem from a misunderstanding about the automatic referral to Judge Theiler. Even though a matter is referred, the undersigned must review any challenged order the referral judge issues. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Thus, the only question before the Court is whether the Court should refer both matters or withdraw the referral before consolidating. Upon review of the record, the Court will withdraw the referral in Cause No. 20-5819-BHS-

MAT and consolidate. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that MetLife’s motion to consolidate, Dkt. 8, is GRANTED. The Clerk shall withdraw the referral in Cause No. 20-5819-BHS-MAT, consolidate the two cases into this action, which is the lower numbered case, and close

Cause No. 20-5819-BHS-MAT. The parties shall update the caption to reflect the consolidated actions and file all further documents for either case in this action. Dated this 10th day of November, 2020. A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge