Humphries v. Allstate Insurance Co.

          ORDER

          Dominic W. Lanza, United States District Judge.

         This case was filed over two years ago on May 25, 2017. (Doc. 1.)

         On August 1, 2017, Defendant Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. (Doc. 17.)

         On August 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting “that all parties' MIDP deadlines be deferred until the Court rules on Allstate's motion to dismiss.” (Doc. 25 at 2.) Plaintiff reasoned that if discovery obligations were deferred as to Allstate but not as to the other parties, the case would “proceed inefficiently and piecemeal.” (Id. at 3.)

         On August 16, 2017, the Court ordered that all parties' MIDP obligations were stayed “pending resolution of Allstate's Motion to Dismiss.” (Doc. 26 at 1.)

         On August 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 27.)

         On September 5, 2017, Allstate filed a motion to dismiss the FAC “for lack of personal jurisdiction, on the same grounds and for the same reasons set forth in Allstate's currently-pending motion to dismiss the original complaint.” (Doc. 32.)

         On March 27, 2018, the Court granted Allstate's pending motion to dismiss the FAC, ^[1] ruling that Plaintiff had failed to provide evidence sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Allstate in Arizona under either a general or specific theory of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 40 at 2-9.) The Court severed the claims against Allstate and transferred them to the Eastern District of Michigan, retaining jurisdiction over Defendants CorVel Corporation and CorVel Healthcare Corporation (“CorVel”). (Id. at 10.)

         On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Certification of Order As Final Under Rule 54(b), ” requesting certification of the March 27, 2018 order. (Doc. 41.)

         On April 10, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for certification. (Doc. 42.) The Court noted that (1) “the basis of Plaintiff's desire to appeal the Court's decision-to avoid litigating against two Defendants in two separate Districts-is a result of Plaintiff's own request to sever the claims against the two Defendants and retain the claims of CorVel in this Court[, ]” (2) “[b]ecause Plaintiff would not be able to present new evidence to the Court of Appeals to try to demonstrate this Court's personal jurisdiction over Allstate, . . . any appeal of its decision would lack merit[, ]” and (3) an appeal would take a substantial amount of time and if the claims against CorVel were stayed, it would “have the effect of delaying resolution of this case for an extended period of time.” (Id. at 3.)

         On April 12, 2018, the Court ordered that the stay imposed on August 16, 2017, “pending resolution of Allstate's Motion to Dismiss” was lifted. (Doc. 43.)

         On April 19, 2018, the Court set a case management conference on June 11, 2018. (Doc. 44.)

         On May 8, 2018, the Ninth Circuit informed Petitioner and this Court that a petition for writ of mandamus had been received and a docket number had been assigned to the case. (Doc. 45.)

         On May 23, 2018, the Court issued an order vacating the case management conference and staying the action “pending the outcome of Plaintiff's interlocutory appeal.” (Doc. 49 at 2.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a notice “within five days of the resolution of her ...