United States District Court, D. Arizona
Damon P. Humphries, Plaintiff,
v.
Allstate Insurance Company, et al., Defendants.
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
...