Winston v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 JOHN M. WINSTON, Case No. 2:22-CV-288 JCM (EJY) 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. 10 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court are defendant State Farm’s motions for summary judgment and 14 partial summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 34, 35). Plaintiff John Winston responded (ECF Nos. 36, 15 37), to which State Farm replied. (ECF Nos. 38, 39). Without considering the merits of the 16 either motion, the court denies both motions for failure to comply with LR 7-3(a). 17 I. Background 18 This action arises out of an automobile accident and plaintiff’s attempt to recover from 19 insurer State Farm Automobile Insurance Company. (ECF No. 1-A). John Winston was 20 involved in a motor vehicle accident in August 2019. (Id.). The at-fault driver was arrested for 21 driving under the influence. (Id.). 22 Winston allegedly suffered injuries to his back and spine from the accident. (Id.). The 23 at-fault driver’s insurance paid the driver’s policy limits to Winston. (Id.). Winston then sought 24 to recover the difference from State Farm under Winston’s Underinsured Motorist (UIM) 25 coverage. (Id.). 26 The parties dispute Winston’s injuries based on competing medical examinations and 27 expert discovery. (ECF Nos. 34-39). Winston filed his complaint in state court alleging breach 28 1 of contract and related bad faith claims. (ECF No. 1-A). State Farm removed the action to this 2 court. (ECF No. 1). Defendant State Farm now moves, separately, for summary judgment and 3 partial summary judgment. 4 II. Legal Standard 5 It is well established that local rules have the force of law and are binding upon the 6 parties and upon the court. Pro. Programs Grp. v. Dep't of Com., 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 7 1994) (citations omitted). The district court has “considerable latitude in managing the parties’ 8 motion practice and enforcing local rules that place parameters on briefing.” Christian v. Mattel, 9 Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002). 10 III. Discussion 11 Because defendant’s filings fail to comply with the local rules, the court denies, without 12 prejudice, both motions for summary judgment and partial summary judgment. The court makes 13 no findings on the merits of either motion. 14 Local Rule 7-3(a) provides that “[m]otions for summary judgment and responses to 15 motions for summary judgment are limited to 30 pages, excluding exhibits… Parties must not 16 circumvent this rule by filing multiple motions.” 17 State Farm filed two motions simultaneously—one for summary judgment and one for 18 partial summary judgment. The motion for summary judgment is 23 pages, and the motion for 19 partial summary judgment is 30 pages. (ECF Nos. 37, 38). 20 The plaintiff argues that defendant’s two motions plainly violate LR 7-3(a). The court 21 agrees. State Farm’s effectively combined 53-page motion for summary judgment asks the court 22 to perform the same action with different arguments. In one motion, State Farm argues that one 23 dispositive fact would seemingly alleviate State Farm from liability on all of Winston’s claims. 24 In the next motion, State Farm pinpoints arguments to attack specific causes of action and related 25 claims for damages and attorneys’ fees. 26 The primary purpose of local court rules is to maintain consistency and fairness in 27 pleadings. Thus, LR 7-3(a) imposes strict page limits on each filing that are equally applicable 28 to each party. State Farm cannot circumvent this rule by filing two motions containing related 1 but different arguments. State Farm’s efforts to provide layered arguments must be balanced 2 with the court’s interest in judicial efficiency and fairness to parties. 3 The court therefore has sufficient justification to deny both motions as the two motions 4 apparently request the same court action in violation of LR 7-3(a). If State Farm wishes to move 5 for summary judgment again and believes it is necessary to file a motion longer than 30 pages, it 6 may file for leave to exceed the page limits pursuant to LR 7-3(c). This court will only grant 7 such a request upon a showing of good cause. 8 IV. Conclusion 9 Accordingly, 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motions for summary judgment and partial 11 summary judgment (ECF Nos. 34, 35), are DENIED, without prejudice. Defendant may refile 12 its motion conforming with the local rules. 13 DATED September 9, 2024. 14 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28