Parrish v. Endurance Dealer Services, LLC

D. Montana

Parrish v. Endurance Dealer Services, LLC

DecidedOctober 21, 2024

Docket9:24-cv-00078

StatusUnknown

This text of Parrish v. Endurance Dealer Services, LLC (Parrish v. Endurance Dealer Services, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parrish v. Endurance Dealer Services, LLC, (D. Mont. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION MITCHELL PARRISH, Cause No. CV 24—78-M-DWM Plaintiff, ORDER VS. ENDURANCE DEALER SERVICES, LLC d/b/a ENDURANCE WARRANTY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.

Defendant Endurance Dealer Services, LLC, has moved unopposed for leave

to file under seal an unredacted version of the Notice of Additional Interested Parties as required under Local Rule 7.1-1. (Docs. 28, 28-1.) Defendant describes its corporate group structure as follows: the sole member of Defendant is EDS Holding Co., LLC of which the sole member is Endurance Vehicle Services, LLC, which has five members. (Doc. 28.) One member is an individual, the other four members are private equity funds comprised of independent, third-party investors. (/d.) Defendant states that it does

not have permission or authority to publicly disclose the names of or any other information about the sub-members. (/d.). There exists “a general right to inspect and copy public records and

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Comme ‘ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnotes omitted). There is also “a

strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The party seeking to seal records may overcome this presumption by showing that there is a “compelling reason” to do so based on fact. Crr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016). What constitutes a “compelling reason” is “best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. Defendant discusses the purposes of the local disclosure rule as to conflict and diversity jurisdiction, (Doc. 28 at 3-4), but does not state a “compelling reason,” see Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97, to grant its motion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion, (Doc. 28), is DENIED.

DATED this aft of October, 2024. f°

Donald W. Molloy, District Judge United/States District Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION MITCHELL PARRISH, Cause No. CV 24—78-M-DWM Plaintiff, ORDER VS. ENDURANCE DEALER SERVICES, LLC d/b/a ENDURANCE WARRANTY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.

Defendant Endurance Dealer Services, LLC, has moved unopposed for leave

to file under seal an unredacted version of the Notice of Additional Interested Parties as required under Local Rule 7.1-1. (Docs. 28, 28-1.) Defendant describes its corporate group structure as follows: the sole member of Defendant is EDS Holding Co., LLC of which the sole member is Endurance Vehicle Services, LLC, which has five members. (Doc. 28.) One member is an individual, the other four members are private equity funds comprised of independent, third-party investors. (/d.) Defendant states that it does

not have permission or authority to publicly disclose the names of or any other information about the sub-members. (/d.). There exists “a general right to inspect and copy public records and

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Comme ‘ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnotes omitted). There is also “a

strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The party seeking to seal records may overcome this presumption by showing that there is a “compelling reason” to do so based on fact. Crr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016). What constitutes a “compelling reason” is “best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. Defendant discusses the purposes of the local disclosure rule as to conflict and diversity jurisdiction, (Doc. 28 at 3-4), but does not state a “compelling reason,” see Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97, to grant its motion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion, (Doc. 28), is DENIED.

DATED this aft of October, 2024. f°

Donald W. Molloy, District Judge United/States District Court

Debbie Foltz, Consumer Action United Policyholders Texas Watch, Intervenors, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, April J. Ho Jim Mathis Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors, and Consumer Action United Policy-Holders Texas Watch, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Steven Becker

331 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC

809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Parrish v. Endurance Dealer Services, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parrish-v-endurance-dealer-services-llc-mtd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack