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

ORDER 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CHARLES MARYATT and KATHLEEN

MARYATT, husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF

READING PA; FEDERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, a corporation; GRANITE

STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a

corporation; PROTECTIVE NATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY OF OMAHA, a

corporation; WESTCHESTER FIRE

INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation;

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a

corporation,

Defendants.

No. C06-5011RBL

ORDER ON MOTIONS

TO DISMISS AND

MOTIONS TO

TRANSFER

This matter is before the Court on Motions to Dismiss filed in the form of joinders to American

Casualty’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #7]. Defendants Granite State Insurance Company [Dkt. #38];

Westchester Fire Insurance Company [Dkt. # 23]; Travelers Indemnity Company [Dkts. #26 and 34]; and

Federal Insurance Company [Dkt. #27] all join in the portion of American Casualty’s Motion arguing that

this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the litigation because there is no justiciable

controversy presented in the Plaintiff’s complaint. The remaining defendant, Defendant Protective

Case 3:06-cv-05011-RBL Document 56 Filed 03/20/06 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

1

Defendant Granite State also argues that Plaintiffs’ claim with respect to the Washington site is barred

by res judicata. Like American Casualty, Granite State negotiated a settlement agreement precluding American

Linen–and Plaintiffs by way of privity–from re-instituting a claim under Granite State’s policy until Plaintiffs

spend $1 million in cleanup costs. Granite State argues, and Plaintiffs do not dispute, that this condition

precedent was not met. This Court therefore concludes that for reasons outlined in its prior Order, Plaintiffs’

claims with respect to Granite State are also barred.

ORDER 2

National, has been dismissed pursuant to a Stipulated Order of Dismissal [Dkt. #50]. 

For the reasons discussed below, and consistent with the Court’s prior Order Granting American

Casualty’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #51], Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

A. Motions to Dismiss.

Defendants jointly argue that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim. 

Specifically, they assert that Plaintiffs fail to present a justiciable controversy between themselves and the

insurer Defendants.1

 The Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are a potentially liable party for environmental

damages at the Washington site. Plaintiffs claim that they are operators of the Washington site; however,

neither of the Plaintiffs has ever been the owner of the Washington site. More importantly, Plaintiffs

(admittedly) have not been the subject of any administrative proceedings, lawsuits, or any request or

demand whatsoever that they investigate or remediate the Washington site. Plaintiffs are not and never

have been responsible for costs associated with environmental damage at the Washington site. Because

Plaintiffs have no potential liability with respect to the Washington site, there is no controversy for this

Court to resolve with respect to liability insurance coverage. See Asarco, Inc. v. Dep’t of Ecology, 145

Wn.2d 750, 759-760, 43 P.3d 471 (the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate environmental

damages under the MTCA when Ecology has not identified plaintiff as a potentially liable person). This

Court therefore dismisses Plaintiffs’ claims against the remaining defendants with respect to the

Washington site, for lack of a justiciable controversy and a corresponding lack of subject matter

Case 3:06-cv-05011-RBL Document 56 Filed 03/20/06 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

ORDER 3

jurisdiction. 

B. Motions for Change of Venue.

The Defendants jointly move under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer this action to the Federal

District Court for the Northern District of California. They argue that because the California site is the

only site at issue, the action should be transferred there in order to more easily and efficiently access

documents and witnesses associated with the site. For reasons stated in the court’s prior Order, this

Motion is GRANTED and the remaining claims, related to the California site, are TRANSFERRED to the

United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

* * *

The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the

Washington site, and GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Transfer the remaining action regarding the

California site to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California [Dkts. #7, 38, 23,

26, 27 and 34]. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #44] is DENIED as

moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 20th of March, 2006.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05011-RBL Document 56 Filed 03/20/06 Page 3 of 3