United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC David E. Breskin, WSBA #10607
Brendan W. Donckers, WSBA #39406 Young-Ji Ham, WSBA #46421
WASHINGTON INJURY LAWYERS PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
CRONIN LLP Michael A. Moore, WSBA No. 27047 Tori Ainsworth,
WSBA No. 49677 Jay Williams (pro hac vice) David C. Scott
(pro hac vice) Attorneys for Defendants.
STIPULATED MOTION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO CONTINUE CLASS CERTIFICATION
S. Lasnik, United States District Judge.
parties to this action, by and through their undersigned
counsel, jointly and respectfully seek leave of the Court to
renote Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification of Breach of
Contract Claim and continue the December 2 deadline for
Defendants' opposition to that Motion and the December 6
deadline for Plaintiffs reply. The parties have been engaging
in discussions regarding the possible resolution of this case
and a related case in the King County Superior Court. The
parties have scheduled a mediation for January 9, 2019. The
parties respectfully submit that good cause exists for
continuing the class certification deadlines to preserve
judicial resources and promote exploration of efficient
parties have been engaged in discussing the possibility of
resolving this case and another case, Eastside Physical
Therapy, Inc., P.S., et al. v. United Services Automobile
Association, et al., which will be remanded to the King
County Superior Court pursuant to a September 30, 2019
Opinion issued by the Washington Court of
Appeals. Eastside is a putative class
action brought by healthcare providers against Defendants,
challenging their use of the same Reasonable Fee Methodology
that is at issue here. Counsel for Plaintiff Ms. Peoples (who
is an insured, not a healthcare provider) in this case,
Breskin Johnson Townsend PLLC, are also counsel for the
plaintiffs in Eastside. Defense counsel, Corr Cronin
LLP and Schiff Hardin LLP, represent Defendants both in this
case and in Eastside. In connection with their
discussions regarding possible resolution, the parties have
agreed to mediate with Judge Paris K. Kallas, of Judicial
Dispute Resolution, LLC, on January 9, 2019.
order to allow the parties to continue their discussions and
mediate, without committing additional time and resources of
the Court and the parties to briefing and deciding class
certification, the parties stipulate to, and respectfully ask
the Court to issue, an Order continuing the class
certification deadlines. Specifically, the parties request
that the Court renote Plaintiffs Motion for Class
Certification of Breach of Contract Claim for Friday, March
13, 2020, with corresponding deadlines for Defendants'
opposition on March 2 and Plaintiffs reply on March 13. This
three-month continuance will allow sufficient time to
continue ongoing discussions, mediate on January 9, and
conduct any necessary follow-up dialogue after the mediation
in an effort to resolve the parties' dispute and
alleviate the need for any further litigation.
parties respectfully submit that there is good cause for this
requested continuance, as it will allow the parties to pursue
the efficient resolution of this case (and the
Eastside case) without simultaneously being forced
to commit additional time and resources to briefing class
certification, while also preserving the Court's time and
resources, which the parties recognize are limited and should
not be unnecessarily wasted. The parties, therefore,
stipulate and jointly and respectfully request that the Court
enter proposed Order submitted with this Motion.
upon the parties' Stipulated Motion and Order to Continue
Class Certification Deadlines, the Court hereby finds good
cause to GRANT the stipulated motion. The Clerk of Court is
directed to renote Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification
of Breach of Contract Claim (Dkt. #67) for consideration on
Friday, March 13, 2020. Defendants may, on or before March 2,
file a substantive opposition to Plaintiffs Motion.
Plaintiffs reply is due on or before the note date.
See Court of Appeals Division
I Case No. 78134-1 and King County Superior Court Case No.
17-2-26885-2 SEA. The plaintiffs in Eastside filed a
Motion for Reconsideration in the Court of Appeals, which
remains pending. As a result, the case ...