Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01614/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01614-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MISTY DAWN REITZ and NICHOLAS 

IVEY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE 

COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation 

registered to do business in 

the State of California and 

DOES 1 through 100, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-CV-01614-GEB-EFB 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ 

UNAUTHORIZED FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S DISMISSAL MOTION

Defendant Progressive Choice Insurance Company1 moves 

for an order striking Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 

and for an order dismissing this lawsuit with prejudice. (ECF No. 

9.) Defendant argues the FAC should be stricken because 

Plaintiffs lacked authority to amend the contract-based claim 

 

1 Since Defendant argues in the motion that it is erroneously sued 

as “Progressive Direct Insurance Company,” they are referred to here as 

“Progressive Choice Insurance Company,” which Defendant argues is its proper 

name.

Case 2:14-cv-01614-KJM-EFB Document 23 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 2
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

that they amended in the FAC. Defendant seeks dismissal of 

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit as a sanction for filing the unauthorized 

FAC. 

Plaintiffs have not shown they were authorized to file 

the FAC; therefore, the FAC is stricken. However, Defendant has 

not demonstrated that Plaintiff’s lawsuit should be dismissed. 

Hence, the dismissal motion is denied.

Dated: February 6, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-01614-KJM-EFB Document 23 Filed 02/06/15 Page 2 of 2