Walker v. Hartford Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 7, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00084
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 GLEN L. WALKER, CASE NO. C20-0084JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION v. TO DISMISS 12 HARTFORD INSURANCE 13 COMPANY, 14 Defendant. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court is Defendant Hartford Insurance Company’s (“Hartford”) Federal 17 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Glen L. Walker’s 18 complaint. (See Mot. (Dkt. # 7); see also Reply (Dkt. # 9).) Mr. Walker did not file an 19 opposition the motion. (See generally Dkt.) The court has reviewed the motion, the 20 parties’ submissions in support of and in opposition to the motion, the relevant portions 21 // 22 1 of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court GRANTS Hartford’s 2 motion to dismiss.

3 II. BACKGROUND 4 Mr. Walker’s complaint alleges that “Hartford Insurance Company” failed to pay 5 for an insurance claim involving an automobile accident. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1-1) at 6 1-2.) Mr. Walker alleges that he had “full auto coverage” for his vehicle under an 7 insurance policy with Hartford. (See id.) Based on these allegations, Mr. Walker alleges 8 claims for “bad faith,” breach of the insurance policy, civil rights violations, and violation

9 of federal and state laws against discrimination. (See id. at 2.) Hartford moves to dismiss 10 these claims on the basis that Hartford Insurance Company did not issue an insurance 11 policy to Mr. Walker. (See Mot. at 2.) In support of that claim, Hartford attaches a copy 12 of Mr. Walker’s insurance policy, which was issued by Twin City Fire Insurance 13 Company (“Twin City”).1 (See Adams Decl. (Dkt. # 9) ¶ 2, Ex. 1 at 3.)

14 Twin City is not a party to this lawsuit, but Mr. Walker has filed two separate 15 lawsuits against Twin City in the Western District of Washington.2 See Walker, et al. v. 16

17 1 The court may consider the insurance policy on Hartford’s motion to dismiss because the policy is incorporated by reference in Mr. Walker’s complaint. See United States v. 18 Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011).

19 2 The court takes judicial notice of the docket and filings in these lawsuits. “The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be 20 accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). Under this rule, courts may take judicial notice of federal and state court proceedings, see, e.g., Shetty v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 696 F. App’x 828, 829 21 (9th Cir. 2017), without converting a Rule 12 motion to a motion for summary judgment, United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno Cty., 547 F.3d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2008) 22 (citations omitted). 1 Twin City Fire Ins. Co., Case No. C17-1201JCC (W.D. Wash.); Walker v. Twin City Fire 2 Ins. Co., et al., Case No. C19-0565RSM (W.D. Wash.). Mr. Walker’s first suit against

3 Twin City was dismissed with prejudice after a settlement. See Walker, et al. v. Twin 4 City Fire Ins. Co., Case No. C17-1201JCC, Dkt. ## 45, 48 (W.D. Wash.). 5 III. ANALYSIS 6 Rule 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal for “failure to state a claim upon which relief 7 can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint 8 must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

9 plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. 10 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The court is not required “to accept as true 11 allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or 12 unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th 13 Cir. 2001).

14 Here, the court concludes that the complaint fails to state a plausible claim for 15 breach of contract, bad faith, civil rights violations, or discrimination under state or 16 federal law. Mr. Walker bases each of his causes of action on his allegation that he had 17 an insurance policy with Hartford. (See Compl. at 1-2.) However, that allegation is not 18 plausible due to the evidence before the court showing that Twin City Fire Insurance

19 Company, not Hartford, insured Mr. Walker. (See Adams Decl. (Dkt. # 9) ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) 20 Moreover, Mr. Walker failed to respond to Hartford’s claim that Hartford “had no 21 relationship with [Mr. Walker]” (see Mot. at 3; see generally Dkt.), which the court 22 // 1 considers “an admission that the motion has merit,” see Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 2 7(b)(2). Thus, the court GRANTS Hartford’s motion to dismiss.

3 When a court dismisses a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, leave to amend is 4 mandatory unless it is “absolutely clear that amendment could not cure the defect” in the 5 complaint. Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). The court is 6 skeptical that Mr. Walker can state a plausible claim for relief against Hartford due to the 7 evidence showing that Hartford did not insure Mr. Walker. The court is equally skeptical 8 that Mr. Walker can file a plausible claim against Twin City given the potential

9 preclusive effects of Mr. Walker’s other lawsuits against Twin City. Nevertheless, the 10 court grants Mr. Walker leave to amend out of an abundance of caution. 11 IV. CONCLUSIONS 12 For the reasons set forth above, the court GRANTS Hartford’s motion to dismiss 13 (Dkt. # 8) with leave to amend. Mr. Walker may file an amended complaint that alleges

14 specific facts that resolve the issues stated herein no later than 21 days from the filing 15 date of this order. The court warns Mr. Walker that failure to file an amended complaint 16 that resolves the issues stated herein within this time frame will result in dismissal of his 17 complaint with prejudice. 18 Dated this 7th day of April, 2020.

19 A 20 21 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 22