Webb v. Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company

1 HONORABLE JAMAL N. WHITEHEAD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JEFFREY WEBB and DONNA WEBB, Husband and Wife, No.: 2:24-cv-00431-JNW 12 Plaintiffs, STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES 13 v. TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign OCTOBER 28, 2024 Corporation doing business in Washington, DOES I-V, Defendant.

18 I. STIPULATION 19 Pursuant to LCR 10(g), LCR 16(b)(6), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), Plaintiffs Jeffery Webb and Donna Webb (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company (“Defendant” or “Travelers”) (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly move the Court for an order extending all case deadlines in the Court’s Scheduling Order. Dkt. # 12.

23 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 24 On February 28, 2024, Plaintiffs filed suit against Travelers, their homeowners insurance company, in King County Superior Court, Case No. 24-2-04541-4 SEA. Dkt. # 1- 1, 1-3. Travelers removed that case to this Court on March 29, 2024. Dkt. # 1. This case arises from a loss that occurred at Plaintiffs’ residence on or about January 7, 2022. Dkt. # 1- 1. Plaintiffs asserted, among other things, the following causes of action against Travelers: (1) breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, (2) breach of contract, (3) violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and (4) violation of the Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Dkt. # 1-1.

5 On June 6 and June 7, Defendant and Plaintiffs served their Initial Disclosures, respectively. Shortly thereafter, on June 25, Defendant issued its first set of written discovery to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs responded to that written discovery on August 2.

8 After reviewing Plaintiffs’ computation of damages and documentation regarding the same, Defendant requested a settlement demand from Plaintiffs on June 10, 2024. Plaintiffs communicated that they anticipated providing an updated settlement demand once they received an estimate from Plaintiffs’ contractor. To date, Plaintiffs have not been able to secure a finalized estimate from their contractor.

13 Throughout this litigation, Travelers has continued to adjust Plaintiffs’ claim in good faith. The Parties believe that early settlement is possible in this case, but the Parties have not been able to properly evaluate settlement without a finalized estimate from Plaintiffs’ contractor. Good cause exists to extend the case deadlines to properly evaluate early settlement before incurring additional and unnecessary litigation costs.

18 III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY A. Good cause exists to extend the case deadlines.

20 Good cause exists to continue the case deadlines pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and LCR 16(b)(6) because the Parties have worked diligently to assess the remaining disputed portions of Plaintiffs’ insurance claim in order to contemplate early settlement.

23 A trial schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.

24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause exists where parties seeking modification of a scheduling order cannot meet the order’s timetable, even with the exercise of due diligence.

26 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

1 Plaintiffs have diligently worked to secure a contractor’s estimate in order to supply 2|| Defendant with an updated damages analysis. And, Defendant has diligently worked to 3]| gather this information from Plaintiffs. The Parties wish to minimize litigation expenses 4|| while waiting for the contractor’s estimate—specifically because the Parties believe there is a 5]| likelihood of early settlement in this case. Without the contractor’s estimate, it cannot be 6|| determined what damages remain in dispute, what work needs to be done on Plaintiffs’ 7|| residence, and which experts the Parties should plan to retain. Despite diligent efforts, the 8}| Parties will not be able to adequately prepare for any deadline in the scheduling order, 9|| starting with expert disclosures and reports due on November 4, 2024. Dkt. # 12.

B. A five-month continuance of the case deadlines is proper.

11 The Parties respectfully request that the Court grant a five-month continuance of the currently scheduled trial date, along with all associated pretrial deadlines. Before this matter 13]| can proceed, the Parties need additional time to obtain an updated estimate from Plaintiffs’ 14|| contractor, complete written discovery, determine experts, depose fact and expert witnesses, 15|| and conduct mediation before incurring the costs associated with trial.

16 In accordance with the requested continuance of trial, the Parties stipulate to the 17|| following extension of the remaining case deadlines at the Court’s election. This proposed 18]| case schedule also contemplates (1) the expected, extended unavailability of Plaintiffs’ counsel at the end of 2025 and (2) the trial calendars of the Parties’ counsel.

Deadline = = = = CurrentDate = ProposedDate □ Deadline for filing amended pleadings November 4, 2024 April 4, 2025 R Cin P testimony under Fed. | November 4, 2024 | April 4, 2025 231! Disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony Within 30 aye att cr Within 30 nee after under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) expert disclosure expert disclosure 25]| fled by GeeLCR TD) | December 4,2024 May 5, 2025 Discovery completed by January 3, 2025 June 3, 2025 STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES PAGE 3 Bullvant(HouseriBailey PC Seattle, Washington 98104 All dispositive motions and motions challenging expert witness testimony must February 3, 2025 July 7, 2025 be filed by (see LCR 7(d)) Settlement conference under LCR April 3, 2025 September 3, 2025 39.1(c)(2) must be held no later than All motion in limine must be filed by (see April 23, 2025 September 23, 2025 5 LCR 7(d)) Deposition Designations must be submitted May 12, 2025 October 13, 2025 to the Court by (see LCR 32(e)) Agreed pretrial order due May 12, 2025 October 13, 2025 Trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions, and proposed jury instructions must be May 19, 2025 October 20, 2025 filed by Pretrial conference May 27, 2025 October 27, 2025 Trial June 2, 2025 November 3, 2025 12 IV. CONCLUSION 13 The Parties are not seeking a continuance to delay resolution of this case—rather, the Parties wish to minimize litigation expenses and explore early settlement. Upon receipt of the contractor’s estimate, the Parties will be in a better position to negotiate settlement, conduct discovery, and retain experts. For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully and jointly request that the Court enters an order extending all case deadlines as proposed above, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and LCR 16(b)(6).

19 The Parties certify that this motion contains 958 words in compliance the Local Civil Rules.

DATED: October 28, 2024 /s/ Robert D. Bohm s/ Pamela J. DeVet Robert D. Bohm, WSBA #42703 Pamela J. DeVet, WSBA #32882 ROBERT D. BOHM, PLLC Caitlyn Mathews, WSBA #60055 PO Box 25536 BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC Federal Way, WA 98093 925 Fourth Ave. Suite 3800 Email: [email protected] Seattle, WA 98104 Counsel for Plaintiffs Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] /s/ Jesse Froehling Counsel for Defendant Jesse Froehling, WSBA #47881 Daniel McLafferty, WSBA #45243 BASTION LAW, PLLC 113 Cherry St., PMB 97380 Seattle, WA 98104-2205 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs

ORDER It is so ordered.

DATED this 30th day of October, 2024.

13 A 14 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge _______________________________

19 4891-4003-8899.1