Day v. GEICO Casualty Company
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-02103
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Day v. GEICO Casualty Company, Judge Freeman granted GEICO leave to seek reconsideration of the court’s earlier refusal to abstain.
GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, and Jessica Day.
What happened
In Day v. GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO asked for permission to seek reconsideration of the court’s earlier decision not to abstain from exercising jurisdiction. GEICO relied on a written document from the California Department of Insurance that was issued after that decision.
The court found that GEICO had identified a potentially new important fact and had acted diligently after discovery related to the document ended. It granted GEICO leave to file a reconsideration motion, limited that motion to five pages, and set a September 22, 2023 deadline. Jessica Day could respond within 10 days, also in no more than five pages. The court did not decide whether reconsideration or abstention should ultimately be granted.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order.
The detailed version
- Day v. GEICO Casualty Company · No. 5:21-cv-02103
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 18, 2023
Background
GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, and GEICO General Insurance Company, together referred to as GEICO, asked for permission under Civil Local Rule 7-9 to file a motion for reconsideration. GEICO sought to revisit the court’s December 20, 2022 order declining to abstain from exercising its equitable jurisdiction in the case.
GEICO argued that a written document issued by the California Department of Insurance after the earlier order was a new material fact. GEICO said it received the document in January 2023 and acted diligently because Jessica Day’s discovery efforts concerning the document were not exhausted until the court quashed her subpoena to the Department of Insurance on August 16, 2023.
Legal standard
Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party seeking permission to file a reconsideration motion before final judgment must show reasonable diligence and one of several specified circumstances, including a material difference in fact or law, newly emerged material facts or a change in law, or the court’s failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented. The decision whether to grant permission is within the court’s discretion.
Ruling
The court found that GEICO had identified the emergence of a new material fact after the earlier order and had shown reasonable diligence in bringing its request after the related discovery efforts ended. The court therefore granted GEICO’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9.
The court directed GEICO to refile its proposed reconsideration motion. The motion could not exceed five pages and had to be filed by September 22, 2023. Jessica Day could file a response within 10 days after GEICO filed its motion, and her response also could not exceed five pages.
The order granted permission to seek reconsideration; it did not decide the merits of GEICO’s proposed reconsideration motion or whether the court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.