Allstate Indemnity Company v. Lindquist et al, No. 2:2020cv01508 - Document 20 (W.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER granting Defendant's 12 Motion to Continue Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment; and denying Plaintiff's 14 Motion to Strike. The court also DIRECTS the Clerk to re-note Allstate's summary judgment motion (Dkt. # 8 ) for February 5, 2021. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (LH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
o strike is denied. 21 // 22 // ORDER - 3 Case 2:20-cv-01508-JLR Document 20 Filed 12/03/20 Page 4 of 6 1 B. Mr. Lindquist’s Motion to Continue 2 Mr. Lindquist argues that the court should defer ruling on Allstate’s motion for 3 summary judgment because he “has not had a reasonable opportunity to investigate or 4 conduct discovery regarding the issues raised in Allstate’s motion.” (Mot. at 1.) The 5 court agrees. 6 Under Rule 56(d), if the nonmoving party “shows by affidavit or declaration that, 7 for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court 8 may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or 9 declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. 10 P. 56(d). A Rule 56(d) “continuance of a motion for summary judgment for purposes of 11 discovery should be granted almost as a matter of course unless the non-moving party has 12 not diligently pursued discovery of the evidence.” Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. 13 The Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773-74 (9th 14 Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 15 Mr. Lindquist has not failed to diligently pursue discovery at this early stage of 16 this case. Mr. Lindquist has not yet answered the complaint, a case schedule has not been 17 entered, and the court’s preliminary schedule does not require a joint status report to be 18 filed until December 22, 2020. (See generally Dkt; see also Initial Scheduling Order 19 (Dkt. # 11).) Allstate argues that there are no potential new facts that could create a 20 genuine issue that would defeat summary judgment based on judicial estoppel, so no 21 discovery is needed. (See Resp. at 7.) Mr. Lindquist responds that more time is needed 22 to investigate “the differences in the manner in which his personal property was ORDER - 4 Case 2:20-cv-01508-JLR Document 20 Filed 12/03/20 Page 5 of 6 1 inventoried and valued in his 2013 Chapter 11 bankruptcy as compared to his 2019 2 insurance claim.” (Reply (Dkt. # 15) at 2.) This court has previously recognized that a 3 threshold inconsistency between a valuation of personal property in bankruptcy and a 4 valuation in an insurance claim is insufficient to support a motion for partial summary 5 judgment based on judicial estoppel. See Naxos, LLC v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 611 B.R. 6 358, 363-65 (W.D. Wash. 2019). When arguing that estoppel is not warranted in such a 7 situation, Mr. Lindquist is entitled to present evidence regarding the valuation 8 methodologies, the effect of the passage of time on the valuation analyses, and what 9 property was included in each valuation. See id. at 364. Such evidence may be 10 uncovered if Mr. Lindquist is allowed more time. 11 Thus, the court grants Mr. Lindquist’s motion for a continuance. The court 12 re-notes Allstate’s motion for summary judgment to February 5, 2021. Mr. Lindquist is 13 entitled to file a new response to Allstate’s summary judgment motion in accordance with 14 the local rules. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3). Likewise, Allstate may file a 15 reply to Mr. Lindquist’s new response. See id. 16 IV. 17 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the court GRANTS Mr. Lindquist’s motion to 18 continue Allstate’s motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. # 12) and DENIES 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // ORDER - 5 Case 2:20-cv-01508-JLR Document 20 Filed 12/03/20 Page 6 of 6 1 Allstate’s motion to strike (Dkt. # 14). The court also DIRECTS the Clerk to re-note 2 Allstate’s summary judgment motion (Dkt. # 8) for February 5, 2021. 3 4 Dated this 3rd day of December, 2020. 5 6 A 7 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
