Lee v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:24-cv-00591 (W.D. Wash. July 3, 2024). · Go Syfert
Lee v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:24-cv-00591 (W.D. Wash. July 3, 2024). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Lee
v.
Amica Mutual Insurance Company
2:24-cv-00591.
District Court, W.D. Washington.
Jul 3, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 DANIEL LEE and ANASTASIA LEE, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00591-TL 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL v.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13

AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE 14 COMPANY; ROBERT T. HANLEY; T-N-

T CLAIMS AND CONSULTING 15 SERVICES, INC.; and TROY VICTOR

HASKELL d/b/a T-N-T CLAIMS AND 16 CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., 17 Defendants. 18

This case arises out of a dispute regarding insurance coverage for a residential property.

The matter comes before the Court on Defendants Amica Mutual Insurance Company, Robert T.

Hanley, T-N-T Claims & Consulting Services, Inc., and Troy Victor Haskell’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: Improper Suit Against Parties Other than Amica. Dkt. No. 15. As detailed in the Court’s prior Order of Remand (Dkt. No. 26), this case is being remanded to King County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The partial summary judgment motion seeks dismissal of all defendants apart from Amica based on improper suit. See generally Dkt. No. 15. However, the Court has no discretion to adjudicate the merits of this motion. See Scott v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646, 664 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[I]f the court dismisses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it has no discretion and must dismiss all claims.”) Therefore, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

Dated this 3rd day of July 2024.

A

Tana Lin United States District Judge