Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02969/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02969-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael and Kara Wood, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Safeco Insurance Company of America, et

al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2969-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Presently pending before the Court is Defendant Safeco Insurance Company's

("Safeco") Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to

Remand (Doc. 9). Plaintiffs have filed a Response (Doc. 10) and Safeco has filed a Reply

(Doc. 12). 

In its Motion, Safeco asserts that Plaintiffs did not "state with particularity" the

grounds for their motion as required by Rule 7(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

nor did Plaintiffs set forth the "points and authorities relied upon in support of the motion"

as required by Local Rule 7.2(b). 

According to Rule 7(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion "shall state

with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought." The

Case 2:06-cv-02969-MHM Document 13 Filed 03/01/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

rule's "particularity requirement" is designed "to give notice of the basis for the motion to the

court and the opposing party so as to avoid prejudice, 'providing that party with a meaningful

opportunity to respond and the court with enough information to process the motion

correctly.'" Andreas v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 336 F.3d 789, 793 (8th Cir. 2003); see

also Calderon v. Kan. Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 181 F.3d 1180, 1186 (10th Cir. 1999)

("By requiring notice to the court and the opposing party of the basis for the motion, Rule

7(b)(1) advances the policies of reducing prejudice to either party and assuring that ‘the court

can comprehend the basis of the motion and deal with it fairly.'" (quoting 5 Wright & Miller,

Federal Practice And Procedure § 1192 at 42 (2d ed.1990)). Local Rule 7.2(b) requires a

moving party to "serve and file with the motion's papers a memorandum setting forth the

points and authorities relied upon in support of the motion. 

Safeco asserts that in Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the Plaintiffs discussed their bad

faith claim against Defendant G&G Insurance Services ("G&G"). Safeco contends that it

was not until Plaintiff's Reply to Safeco's Response that Plaintiffs made any reference to a

claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant G&G. 

Plaintiffs oppose Safeco's Motion for Leave claiming that Safeco had sufficient

opportunity to brief the issue of intentional infliction of emotional distress because the claim

was set forth in their original complaint and it was "only withdrawn . . . as to Safeco." 

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules clearly states that a motion shall state with particularity

the grounds upon which the movant seeks relief. In their Motion to Remand, Plaintiffs cite

authority addressing their bad faith claim but do not mention intentional infliction of

emotional distress nor cite authority for the claim. It is not until Plaintiffs' Reply that they

include a discussion of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, the Court

grants Safeco's Motion to File a Supplemental Response to address Plaintiffs' intentional

infliction of emotional distress argument.

Accordingly, 

Case 2:06-cv-02969-MHM Document 13 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED that Safeco's Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Response

to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Doc. 9) is granted. Safeco shall file such Response by

March 6, 2007. 

DATED this 27th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02969-MHM Document 13 Filed 03/01/07 Page 3 of 3