United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Damon P. Humphries, Plaintiff,
Allstate Insurance Co., Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL LIFTING OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RE-TRANSFER CASE TO DISTRICT OF
Gerswhin A. Drain, United States District Judge.
25, 2017, Plaintiff Angela Humphries
(“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against
Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and CorVel Corporation
(“CorVel”), alleging breach of contract, bad
faith, and aiding and abetting. See ECF No. 1. On
March 27, 2018, this case was transferred to this Court after
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(“Arizona District Court”) determined that it did
not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant Allstate
Insurance Company (hereinafter, “Defendant”).
See ECF No. 3. In its order, the Arizona District
Court severed Plaintiff's claims against CorVel; those
claims remain pending before that court. Id.
before this Court is Plaintiff's Motion For Partial
Lifting of Stay of Proceedings and to Re-Transfer This Case
to the District of Arizona, filed on September 9, 2019. ECF
No. 20. Defendant filed a Response on September 20, 2019. ECF
No. 21. Plaintiff filed her Reply on September 27, 2019. ECF
hearing on Plaintiff's Motion was scheduled for December
13, 2019. After reviewing the parties' briefs, the Court
finds that no hearing on the Motion is necessary.
See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons set
forth below, the Court will GRANT
Plaintiff's Motion to partially lift the stay of
proceedings which this Court previously entered on May 30,
2018 (ECF No. 16) in order to address the instant motion.
Further, it is ordered that the Court will
DENY Plaintiff's Motion to re-transfer
this case to the District of Arizona.
14, 1979, Plaintiff suffered permanent injuries from an
automobile accident in Michigan. ECF No. 1, PageID.2.
Plaintiff was a Michigan resident at the time of her
accident. Id. Plaintiff suffered a severe brain
injury, causing her to be hospitalized for roughly six months
immediately after the accident. Id. Plaintiff's
family now provides her with 24-hour care. ECF No.1,
PageID.3. She continues to receive No-Fault benefits under
the terms of her father's Michigan No-Fault insurance
policy with Defendant. ECF No. 21, PageID.593.
2004, Plaintiff sued Defendant in Oakland County Circuit
Court, No. 05-067578, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and
violations of the Consumer Protection Act. Id.; ECF
No. 1, PageID.5. Plaintiff and Defendant (together, the
“Parties”) settled the Michigan state court
lawsuit in May 2006 and entered into an agreement regarding
Plaintiff's attendant care from 2006 through 2016. ECF
No. 21, PageID.594. The Parties' agreement included a
provision where the hourly rate for Plaintiff's attendant
would be adjusted yearly based on the consumer price index.
ECF No. 1, PageID.5.
to the Parties' settlement, in 2010, Plaintiff and her
family moved from Michigan to the Phoenix area in Arizona,
where they continue to reside today. ECF No. 20, PageID.421.
According to Defendant, its employees in Michigan continue to
handle Plaintiff's claim. ECF No. 21, PageID.594.
early 2016, Defendant hired CorVel to assist it in adjusting
the amount of daily attendant care paid under the Michigan
No-Fault policy and Michigan No-Fault Act. Id.
CorVel scheduled Plaintiff for an insurance medical exam with
Dr. Barry Hendlin in March 2016. ECF No. 1, PageID.6. CorVel
asked Dr. Hendlin to evaluate Plaintiff's “need for
attendant care” and “the hours per day required
and the type of provider required.” Id.
According to Plaintiff, Defendant “actively ignored her
Arizona treating physicians and intended to cut the hours and
hourly rate, through the use of CorVel and Dr. Hendlin to
justify its decision.” ECF No. 20, PageID.422.
instituted this action on May 25, 2017 in the Arizona
District Court following Defendant's adjustment of her
claim. See ECF No. 1. Defendant then moved to
dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction. See ECF No. 21, PageID.594. Plaintiff
opposed the motion. See ECF No. 20-2, PageID.496. On
March 27, 2018, the Arizona District Court granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss, severed Plaintiff's
claims against Defendant from her claims against CorVel, and
ordered the transfer of Plaintiff's claims against
Defendant to this Court. ECF No. 3, PageID.595.
did not seek reconsideration from the Arizona District
Court's order. ECF No. 20, PageID.427. On May 8, 2018,
she filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Ninth
Circuit, challenging the Arizona District Court's
determination that it lacks general personal jurisdiction
over Defendant. See ECF No. 14-1. On May 17, 2018,
Plaintiff filed an emergency motion in this Court for a stay
of proceedings pending the outcome of her petition. ECF No.
14. This Court granted Plaintiff's emergency motion on
May 30, 2019. ECF No. 16. This case was administratively
closed on that same day.
March 12, 2019, after holding oral argument, the Ninth
Circuit denied Plaintiff's request. See ECF No.
20-2, PageID.590. The Ninth Circuit explained that this case
failed to present “extraordinary circumstances
involving a grave miscarriage of justice.” Id.
(quoting NBS Imaging Sys., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court,
841 F.2d 297, 298 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff sought
reconsideration of the Ninth Circuit's decision en banc,
but her request was denied on May 8, 2019. ECF No. 20,
PageID.427. She did not seek certiorari from the Supreme
Court of the United States. Id.
present Motion, Plaintiff asks this Court to partially lift
the previously ordered stay of proceedings (ECF No. 16) and
to re-transfer her case to the District of Arizona.
Id. at PageID.438. She argues that this Court should
find that the Arizona District Court committed “clear
error” and that its decision “will [result in]
manifest injustice.” Id. at PageID.417.
Defendant opposed Plaintiff's Motion on September 20,
2019, asserting that Plaintiff's attempt to
“collaterally attack both the Arizona District Court
and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals” should be
denied. ECF No. 21, PageID.596. Plaintiff filed her Reply to
Defendant's opposition on September 27, 2019. ECF No. 22.