MatconUSA LP v. Houston Casualty Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 MATCONUSA LP, CASE NO. C19-1952JLR-TLF 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING JOINT v. MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 12 DATE AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION Before the court is the joint motion to continue the trial date and pretrial deadlines filed by Plaintiff MatconUSA LP (“Matcon”) and Defendant Marsh USA Inc. (“Marsh”). (Jt. Mot. (Dkt. # 83).) Defendants Houston Casualty Company (“HCC”) and Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (“CFSIC”) do not oppose the motion. (See Williams Decl. (Dkt. # 85) ¶ 3.) The court has considered the motion, all submissions filed in support of the motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law.

2 Being fully advised, the court DENIES Matcon and Marsh’s motion.

3 II. BACKGROUND 4 Matcon was hired to perform excavation work for a construction project at 1200 Stewart Street in Seattle, Washington. (Bourgeois Decl. (Dkt. # 47) ¶ 3.) In July 2019, the project’s general contractor, Graham Construction, filed claims against Matcon and the project’s owner, Project Stewart, in King County Superior Court (the “Underlying Matter”). (See id. ¶ 8, Ex. E (attaching underlying lawsuit pleadings).)

9 Matcon filed this action for declaratory relief and damages against its insurer, HCC, on November 27, 2019. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) It amended its complaint on February 13, 2020, to add allegations establishing the court’s diversity jurisdiction over the matter. (Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 19).) On March 31, 2020, the court issued a scheduling order setting a trial date of April 26, 2021. (3/31/20 Sched. Order (Dkt. # 22).)

14 On June 26, 2020, Matcon moved for leave to amend its complaint to add Marsh and CFSIC as Defendants based on information revealed in discovery. (MTA (Dkt.

16 # 27).) The court granted the motion on July 20, 2020 (see 7/20/20 Order (Dkt. # 29)), and Matcon filed its second amended complaint the next day (SAC (Dkt. # 30)).

18 On November 10, 2020, before the expiration of the original discovery deadline, HCC moved to continue the trial date. (MTC (Dkt. # 51).) HCC argued that the joinder of Marsh and CFSIC as Defendants “altered the scope of the lawsuit and requires the . . .

21 ‘Parties’ to engage in additional discovery.” (Id. at 1-2.) On November 8, 2020, the court found good cause to grant HCC’s motion to continue. (11/17/20 Order (Dkt. # 53).)

1 It issued an amended scheduling order setting the discovery deadline on May 28, 2021; the dispositive motions deadline on June 29, 2021; and the trial to begin on November 8, 2021. (11/17/20 Sched. Order (Dkt. # 54) at 1.)

4 On August 5, 2021—months after the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines the court set in its November 17, 2020 scheduling order had already passed—Marsh moved the court for a one-year extension of the trial date and all pretrial deadlines in order to complete discovery. (8/5/21 Mot. (Dkt. # 75).) Matcon opposed the motion but suggested that a “short” extension of three to six months “may be warranted” because the Underlying Matter had not yet resolved. (Matcon Resp. to 8/5/21 Mot. (Dkt. # 77) at 5.)

10 The court denied Marsh’s motion, finding that Marsh had not established good cause that would justify a one-year extension. (8/30/21 Order (Dkt. # 82).) The court informed the parties, however, that it would consider moving their trial date to the end of its calendar and invited them to file a stipulated motion if they wished to seek that relief. (Id. at 7.)

14 III. ANALYSIS 15 Matcon and Marsh now jointly seek a six-month extension of the trial date and all pretrial deadlines. (Jt. Mot. at 2.) They argue that they have good cause to justify this extension because the Underlying Matter, upon which Matcon’s claims rest, has not yet been resolved, despite Matcon’s entry into an agreement in principle that would resolve all claims made by and against it in that action. (Jt. Mot. at 3; Sleight Decl. (Dkt. # 84) ¶¶ 4-6.) Matcon represents that negotiations between Project Stewart and Graham Construction are still ongoing, although it anticipates that the Underlying Matter may soon be resolved. (Sleight Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)

1 The court issues scheduling orders setting trial and related dates to provide a reasonable schedule for the resolution of disputes. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may only be modified for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good cause” for purposes of Rule 16 focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to modify the pretrial scheduling order.

6 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id. at 609. To show “good cause,” a party must show that it could not meet the deadline imposed by the scheduling order despite its diligence. Id. 10 Although the court recognizes that Matcon has been diligent in trying to resolve the Underlying Matter prior to trial, the court is unable to grant the parties a six-month continuance. The court has a full trial calendar and will not imperil the trial dates of other parties. Nevertheless, as it did in its prior order, the court will consider moving the parties’ trial date to the end of its trial calendar. If the parties wish to seek this relief, they should file a stipulated motion to that effect. The parties should be aware that the court is presently scheduling trials in summer 2023. If the court moves this matter to the end of its trial calendar, the court will also issue a new scheduling order with respect to the pretrial deadlines.

19 // // // // 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Matcon and Marsh’s joint motion to continue the trial date and pretrial deadlines (Dkt. # 83).

4 DATED this 16th day of September, 2021.

5 A JAMES L. ROBART 7 United States District Judge