Kallemeyn Collision Center, Inc. et al v. 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company et alMOTION to Strike 130 Amended ComplaintM.D. Fla.October 9, 2015UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION KALLEMEYN COLLISION CENTER, INC., et al. Case No. 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS (Originally filed in N.D. Illinois) MDL Docket No. 6:14-md-2557-GAP-TBS Plaintiffs, v. DISPOSITIVE MOTION 21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL INS. CO., et al., Defendants. CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW The undersigned Defendants respectively file this Motion to Strike (“Motion”) the untimely Amended Complaint brought by certain Illinois auto body repair shops (“Plaintiffs”).1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT On August 17, 2015, this Court dismissed the Complaint2 in this action and set a date certain by which an amended complaint would be due - September 8, 2015. See Doc. 128. On August 21, 2015, Plaintiffs filed for an extension of time to file their Amended Complaint in the Illinois Action. See Motion, In re Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litig., No. 6:14-md-2557 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2015) (Doc. 225). On August 24, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion, extended the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Amended Complaint in the Illinois 1 Amended Complaint, Kallemeyn Collision Center, Inc., et al., v. 21st Century Centennial Ins. Co., et al., No. 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2015) (“Illinois Action”) (Doc. 130). 2 Complaint, No. 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2014) (Doc. 1). Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID 919 2 Action by ten days, and set a new date certain of September 18, 2015. See Endorsed Order, In re Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litig., No. 6:14-md-2557 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2015) (Doc. 228). Yet, Plaintiffs failed to file the Amended Complaint in the Illinois Action until September 19, 2015. See Doc. 130. The issue of untimely pleadings filed by auto body repair shops asserting antitrust claims in this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) is not new. Pending before the Court are three fully briefed motions to strike other untimely antitrust complaints in this MDL.3 However, despite being on notice of these motions to strike, having a full month to prepare the Amended Complaint in the Illinois Action for filing, and requesting and receiving extra time from the Court, Plaintiffs missed the unambiguous deadline set for a date certain by this Court for filing their Amended Complaint. The cut-off set by the Court came and went without Plaintiffs seeking a further extension from this Court and without notifying Defendants of any grounds for excusable neglect (legitimate or otherwise). As a result of Plaintiffs’ untimely filing, under governing Eleventh Circuit case law and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), at midnight Eastern Standard Time on September 18, 2015, the Court’s August 17, 2015 Order dismissing the Complaint in the Illinois Action without prejudice was converted to a dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court strike the untimely Amended Complaint. 3 Motions to strike were filed and are fully briefed in Alpine Straightening Systems, Inc. d/b/a Alpine Body Shop, et al., v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., et al., No. 6:14-cv-06003-GAP-TBS (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2015) (the “Utah Action”) (Docs. 105, 112, 114); Parker Auto Body, Inc., et al., v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., et al., No. 6:14-cv-06004-GAP-TBS (M.D. Fla. May 21, 2015) (the “Louisiana Action”) (Docs. 124, 136, 141); and Indiana AutoBody Assoc., Inc. v. State Farm Mutual, et al., No. 6:14-cv-06001-GAP-TBS (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2015) (the “Indiana Action”) (Docs. 153, 158, 161). Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 18 PageID 920 3 ARGUMENT In its Order extending the deadline for the Amended Complaint in the Illinois Action, the Court required Plaintiffs to file an amended pleading by September 18, 2015. See Endorsed Order, In re Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litig., No. 6:14-md-2557 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2015) (Doc. 228). The Court was well within its judicial authority to set such a deadline. See, e.g., Schuurman v. M/V Betty K V, 798 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir. 1986) (stating that a district court may “provide for a stated period within which the plaintiff may amend the complaint”). It is undisputed from the public docket that Plaintiffs failed to file the Amended Complaint until September 19, 2015. See Doc. 130. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), “[w]hen the Court sets a date certain in a Court order for a document to be filed, the respondent filing the document is not entitled to add three days for ‘service’ of the document.”4 United States v. Hennigan, No. 6:13-CV- 1609-ORL-31, 2015 WL 2084729, at *2 n.3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2015) (Presnell, J.) (rejecting party’s contention that he was granted an additional three days to respond under Rule 6(d), which is “simply inapplicable to orders of the Court which set filing deadlines”). See also Estate of Miller ex rel Miller v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:01-CV-545-FTM-29, 2004 WL 6235323, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2004) (rejecting argument that party had an additional three days for response to judgment served electronically where response was required “not later than fourteen (14) days following the entry of judgment,” since “[t]he Eleventh Circuit [has] found that ‘[Rule 6(d)] does not apply to time periods that are triggered by the entry of a judgment or an order’”) (quoting Staib v. Preprint Publ’g Co., 4 Rule 6(e) was renumbered as Rule 6(d) in the 2007 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 3 of 18 PageID 921 4 Inc., 220 F.3d 589 (11th Cir. 2000)); Hialeah Hosp., Inc. v. Aguiar, No. 97-0038-CIV., 1997 WL 579168, at *3 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 1997) (stating that the Rule “applies only when a party is required to take some act within a prescribed period after service of notice by mail” and closing the case: “The Court’s Order Granting Motion to Dismiss did not give Hialeah the right to file an amended complaint within a prescribed period after service of notice by mail. Instead, the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss gave Hialeah the right to file an amended complaint within a prescribed period after the date of the Order. Thus, Rule 6(e) is inapplicable, and Hialeah was not entitled to the three additional days for mailing described in that Rule.”) (emphasis in original).5 The Court’s August 24, 2015 Endorsed Order gave the Plaintiffs an extension “to September 18, 2015.” In re Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litig., No. 6:14-md-2557 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2015) (Doc. 228). Indeed, in response to motions to strike untimely complaints in two of the other antitrust actions in this MDL, Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that when the Court sets a date certain, it “actually mean[s] a date certain.” Pls.’ Resp. to Mot. to Strike the 5See also Clements v. Florida E. Coast Ry. Co., 473 F.2d 668, 670 (5th Cir. 1973) (“[A]gree[ing] with defendant that 6(e) has no application, because the action required of plaintiff was not within a prescribed period after service of the order upon him.”); Hong v. Smith, 129 F.3d 824, 825 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that three days were not added to the time to respond to a letter from the Court Clerk where the “time for filing a response ran from the date of the Clerk’s letter”); Ramirez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 303, 304 (D.N.M. 2000) (“The Stipulated Order of Dismissal required Plaintiffs to re-file their complaint ‘within 90 days of the date of this order...’ The 90 days commenced running from the date the order was filed by the court clerk, not from the date of service. Hence, a plain meaning interpretation of the rule favors the non-application of Rule 6(e).”); 1-6 Moore’s Federal Practice - Civil § 6.05 (Matthew Bender 3d. Ed.) (“The automatic three-day extension of Rule 6(d) applies only when a party’s time to act is measured from the date of service of a motion, notice, or other paper. There is no extension in connection with time periods that are keyed to some event other than service.”). Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 4 of 18 PageID 922 5 Second Am. Compl., Utah Action, Doc. 112.6 Here, Plaintiffs had to (and failed to) file the Amended Complaint in the Illinois Action by the Court-ordered deadline. After that point, pursuant to governing Eleventh Circuit law, and the law of this Court, the Court’s August 17, 2015 Order dismissing the initial Complaint became final and appealable. See Hertz Corp. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 16 F.3d 1126, 1132 (11th Cir. 1994) (“[O]nce the court has identified the date upon which the leave to amend expires, that expiration date becomes the date of the final order unless the court grants an extension of time upon consideration of a motion filed before the expiration date has passed.”) (emphasis in original); Dependable Component Supply, Inc. v. Carrefour Informatique Tremblant, Inc., 572 F. App’x 796, 799 (11th Cir. 2014) (“The law of this Circuit is clear that a dismissal with leave to amend becomes final for purposes of appeal at the expiration of the window to amend.”); Schuurman v. Motor Vessel Betty K V, 798 F.2d at 445 (“In dismissing the complaint, the district court may also provide for a stated period within which the plaintiff may amend the complaint. If the plaintiff does not amend the complaint within the time allowed, no amendment may be made absent leave of court, and the dismissal order becomes final at the end of the stated period. For appeal purposes, we hold that the order of dismissal in this situation becomes final upon the expiration of the time allowed for amendment.”); Bell v. Florida Highway Patrol, No. 6:05-CV-1806-ORL-31, 2014 WL 542939, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2014) (Presnell, J.), aff’d, 589 F. App’x 473 (11th Cir. 2014) (“When a district 6 As Defendants made clear, Plaintiffs are mistaken and no extra time is afforded either when the court sets a date certain upon which leave to amend expires or when a court gives a specific period of time after which leave to amend expires. See Mot. to Strike the Second Am. Compl., Utah Action, Doc. 105; Mot. to Strike the First Am. Compl., Louisiana Action, Doc. 124; Mot. to Strike Pls. Second Am. Compl., Indiana Action, Doc. 153. Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 5 of 18 PageID 923 6 court dismisses a complaint with leave to amend within a certain period, the dismissal order becomes final (and therefore appealable) at the end of the stated period.”). This Illinois Action is one of 22 copycat actions in this MDL, and has procedurally lagged behind the lead action, A&E Auto Body Inc., et al., v. 21st Century Centennial Ins. Co., et al., No. 6:14-cv-00310 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2014) (the “Florida Action”). The Amended Complaint in the Florida Action was dismissed without prejudice on January 22, 2015, and the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend. See Order, Florida Action, No. 6:14- cv-00310 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2015) (Doc. 293) (the “Jan. 22, 2015 Order”). The initial Complaint in the Illinois Action was essentially a carbon copy of the Amended Complaint in the Florida Action. Compare Doc. 1, with Amended Complaint, Florida Action, No. 6:14- cv-00310 (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2014) (Doc. 167). Thus, the Court’s Jan. 22, 2015 Order put the Plaintiffs in the Illinois Action on notice that, in the event their initial Complaint was similarly dismissed (as it likely would be, considering it was nearly identical to the Amended Complaint in the Florida Action), they would have to amend their pleading. Indeed, in the Illinois Action, Magistrate Judge Smith recommended dismissal of the initial Complaint with leave to amend on June 3, 2015 (the “June 3, 2015 R&R”). See Doc. 32. Judge Presnell granted the motion to dismiss the Illinois Action on August 17, 2015. See Doc. 128. Plaintiffs therefore have no excuse as to why their filing was late. Plaintiffs sought and received an extension of time to file their Amended Complaint to September 18, 2015. Moreover, Plaintiffs failed to seek a second extension to file their Amended Complaint after the September 18, 2015 deadline. Therefore, at midnight on September 18, 2015, the Court’s August 17, 2015 Order adopting the June 3, 2015 R&R became final and was converted from Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 6 of 18 PageID 924 7 a dismissal without prejudice to a dismissal with prejudice. See Hertz, 16 F.3d at 1127 n.3 (stating that a dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) becomes a “dismissal with prejudice when no timely amendment was filed and no request for an extension was submitted”); see also Wilson v. Arizona Classic Auto, No. 09-80344-CIV, 2010 WL 1655811, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2010) (“[w]ithout a request for an extension of time or an amendment having been filed, the dismissal order becomes a final, appealable order”). The Court should accordingly strike Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. See id. (striking an amended complaint and closing case where the amended complaint was filed two days late). Finally, Plaintiffs’ untimely filing of the Amended Complaint also violated the requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as Plaintiffs did not seek Defendants’ consent to file after the deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.”).7 Plaintiffs’ court-ordered leave to amend expressly expired on September 18, 2015, and Plaintiffs neither sought nor obtained Defendants’ consent or the Court’s leave to file the Amended Complaint late on September 19, 2015. Plaintiffs’ untimely filing of the Amended Complaint therefore contravenes the plain language of the applicable Rule. The Court should accordingly strike Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. See Regions Bank v. Commonwealth 7 Plaintiffs’ attorneys were well aware of the September 18, 2015 deadline. However, even if Plaintiffs’ counsel misunderstood the court’s order, or the applicable rules, such misunderstanding would not suffice as “excusable neglect.” Estate of Miller ex rel Miller, 2004 WL 6235323, at *4 (“an attorney’s misunderstanding … cannot constitute excusable neglect such that a party is relieved of the consequences of failing to comply with a statutory deadline.’”). Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 7 of 18 PageID 925 8 Land Title Ins. Co., No. 11-23257-CIV, 2012 WL 5410948, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2012) (“Striking is appropriate where … a party fails to seek leave of court before filing an unauthorized pleading.”). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Certain Defendants’ Motion to Strike the untimely Amended Complaint and close the Illinois Action. Dated: October 9, 2015 /s/ David L. Yohai David L. Yohai (admitted pro hac vice) John P. Mastando III (admitted pro hac vice) Eric Hochstadt (admitted pro hac vice) WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10153 Telephone: 212-310-8000 Facsimile: 212-310-8007 Email: david.yohai@weil.com Email: john.mastando@weil. com Email: eric.hochstadt@weil.com Counsel for 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company, 21st Century North America Insurance Company, Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, and Mid-Century Insurance Company /s/ Jeffrey S. Cashdan Jeffrey S. Cashdan, admitted pro hac vice Claire C. Oates, admitted pro hac vice KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 472-5139 jcashdan@kslaw.com coates@kslaw.com Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 8 of 18 PageID 926 /s/ Michael R. Nelson Michael R. Nelson, admitted pro hac vice Kymberly Kochis, admitted pro hac vice Francis X. Nolan, admitted pro hac vice Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-7703 Telephone: (212) 389-5068 michael.nelson@sutherland.com kymberly.kochis@sutherland.com frank.nolan@sutherland.com Counsel for Progressive Direct Insurance Company and Progressive Northern Insurance Company /s/ Richard L. Fenton Richard L. Fenton (admitted pro hac vice) Mark L. Hanover (admitted pro hac vice) Dentons US LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Tel: (312) 876-8000 Fax: (312) 876-7934 Email: richard.fenton@dentons.com Email: mark.hanover@dentons.com Bonnie Lau Dentons US LLP 525 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2708 Telephone: (415) 882-5000 Facsimile: (415) 882-0300 bonnie.lau@dentons.com Lori J. Caldwell (Florida Bar No. 026874) Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA 300 S Orange Ave, Suite 1400 PO Box 1873 Orlando, FL 32802-1873 Tel: (407) 839-4511 Fax: (407) 835-2011 Email: lcaldwell@rumberger.com Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 9 of 18 PageID 927 Attorneys for Defendants Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Encompass Home and Auto Insurance Company, Esurance Insurance Company, and Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company /s/ Timothy J. Rooney Timothy J. Rooney (admitted pro hac vice) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700 trooney@winston.com Laura Besvinick STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 3100 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-9300 Facsimile: (305) 789-9302 lbesvinick@stroock.com Fla. Bar No. 391158 Counsel for Travelers Commercial Insurance Company and The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 10 of 18 PageID 928 /s/ Michael E. Mumford Ernest E. Vargo, Admitted Pro Hac Vice evargo@bakerlaw.com Michael E. Mumford, Admitted Pro Hac Vice mmumford@bakerlaw.com BAKERHOSTETLER LLP PNC Center, Suite 3200 1900 East 9th Street Cleveland, OH 44114-3482 Telephone (216) 621-0200 Facsimile (216) 696-0740 Counsel for Defendants Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, LM General Insurance Company, LM Insurance Corporation, Liberty Insurance Corporation, and Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois /s/ Christopher C. Skambis CHRISTOPHER C. SKAMBIS Florida Bar No. 0262358 THE SKAMBIS LAW FIRM 720 Rugby Street, Suite 120 Orlando, Florida 32804 Telephone: (407) 649-0090 Facsimile: (407) 649-0191 Email: cskambis@skambislaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Safeway Insurance Company /s/ Robert L. Steinmetz (w/permission) Robert L. Steinmetz Gwin Steinmetz & Baird, PLLC 401 W. Main Street, Suite 1000 Louisville, KY 40202 Direct: 502-618-5711 Cell: 502-836-8028 Fax: 502-618-5701 rsteinmetz@gsblegal.com Counsel for Safe Auto Insurance Company Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 11 of 18 PageID 929 /s/ Seth A. Schmeeckle Seth A. Schmeeckle, Trial Counsel Louisiana Bar No. 27076 Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, A Law Corp. 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2775 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 568-1990 Fax: (504) 310-9195 sschmeeckle@lawla.com and Marjorie M. Salazar Florida Bar No. 0939021 Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, A Law Corp. 815 Walker St., Suite 1447 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-1990 Fax: (713) 222-1996 msalazar@lawla.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HORACE MANN INSURANCE COMPANY AND HORACE MANN PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY /s/ Kathy J. Maus KATHY J. MAUS, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 0896330 kmaus@butlerpappas.com JULIUS F. PARKER III, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 0160857 jparker@butlerpappas.com Secondary: eservice@butlerpappas.com BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP 3600 Maclay Blvd., Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Telephone: (850) 894-4111 Facsimile: (850) 894-4999 Attorneys For Mercury Insurance Company of Illinois Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 12 of 18 PageID 930 /s/ Kathy L. Osborn Kathy L. Osborn, Indiana Atty. No. 21927-53 Ryan M. Hurley, Indiana Atty. No. 24956-49 Sarah C. Jenkins, Indiana Atty. No. 26421-53 FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Kathy.osborn@faegrebd.com Ryan.hurley@faegrebd.com Sarah.jenkins@faegrebd.com Tel. (317) 237-0300 Fax (317) 237-1000 Michael S. McCarthy, Colorado Atty. No. 6688 Heather Carson Perkins, Colorado Atty. No. 30168 3200 Wells Fargo Center 1700 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203-4532 Tel. (303) 607-3703 Fax (303) 607-3600 Michael.mccarthy@faegrebd.com Heather.perkins@faegrebd.com Counsel for Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance Company /s/ Michael R. Pennington MICHAEL R. PENNINGTON Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP One Federal Place 1819 Fifth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 205.521.8000 Fax: 205.521.8800 Email: mpennington@babc.com Counsel for Defendant First Acceptance Insurance Company Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 13 of 18 PageID 931 s/ Joseph E. Ezzie (w/permission) Joseph E. Ezzie Email: jezzie@bakerlaw.com BAKERHOSTETLER Capitol Square, Suite 2100 65 East State Street Columbus, OH 43215-4260 Telephone: 614.228.1541 Facsimile: 614.462.2616 Counsel for Grange Mutual Casualty Company and Grange Indemnity Ins. Co. /s/ E.K. Cottrell (w/permission) E.K. Cottrell (Fla. Bar No: 0013579) EMAIL: ecottrell@sgrlaw.com SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 50 N. Laura Street, Suite 2600 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 598-6100 Facsimile: (904) 598-6300 Counsel for Dairyland Insurance Company /s Lori McAllister LORI McALLISTER (P39501) THEODORE J. GREELEY (P77862) Dykema Gossett PLLC 201 Townsend, Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 Phone: 517.374.9150 lmcallister@dykema.com Counsel for Auto-Owners Insurance Company Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 14 of 18 PageID 932 /s/ Frank G. Burt (w/permission) Frank G. Burt (FL Bar No. 197963) C. Todd Willis (FL Bar No. 670766) CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT PA 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 400 East Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: 202.965.8100 Facsimile: 202.965.8104 fburt@cfjblaw.com twillis@cfjblaw.com Counsel for American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida /s/ Rowe W. Snider ______________ Rowe W. Snider - Trial Counsel Matthew T. Furton Julia C. Webb LOCKE LORD LLP 111 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 312.443.0700 rsnider@lockelord.com mfurton@lockelord.com jwebb@lockelord.com Counsel for Defendant Amica Mutual Insurance Company /s/ Michael B. de Leeuw (w/permission) Michael B. de Leeuw John J. Sullivan Jason Bonk COZEN O’CONNOR 45 Broadway, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10006 P: (212) 509-9400 F: (212) 509-9492 MdeLeeuw@cozen.com JSullivan@cozen.com JBonk@cozen.com Counsel for AIG Property Casualty Company Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 15 of 18 PageID 933 /s/ Johanna W. Clark Johanna W. Clark CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A. 450 S. Orange Ave., Suite 500 Orlando, Florida 32801 Telephone: (407) 849-0300 Facsimile: (407) 648-9099 Email: jclark@cfjblaw.com Michael L. McCluggage EIMER STAHL LLP 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-7600 Facsimile: (312) 692-1718 E-mail: mmcluggage@eimerstahl.com Michael P. Kenny ALSTON & BIRD LLP One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone: 404-881-7000 Facsimile: 404-881-7777 Email: mike.kenny@alston.com Attorneys for Defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company /s/ William J. Kelly III (w/permission) William J. Kelly III (LA Bar #21662, CO Bar #38749) KELLY & WALKER LLC 1515 Larimer Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202 Tel: (720) 236-1800 Fax: (720) 236-1799 Email: wkelly@kellywalkerlaw.com Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 16 of 18 PageID 934 Charles I. Hadden (D.C. Bar # 277855) TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 401 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 662-2025 chuck.hadden@troutmansanders.com David F. Cutter (IL Bar # 6276948, DC Bar # 456700, MD Bar (no number assigned)) TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 759-5556 david.cutter@troutmansanders.com Counsel for COUNTRY Mutual Insurance Company, COUNTRY Casualty Insurance Company and COUNTRY Preferred Insurance Company Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 17 of 18 PageID 935 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g), on October 8, 2015, counsel for Defendants 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company, 21st Century North American Insurance Company, Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, and Mid-Century Insurance Company conferred via telephone on behalf of the moving Defendants (“Defendants”) with Eric Zard, one of counsel for Plaintiffs and designated liaison counsel for Plaintiffs by Allison Fry in Allison Fry’s absence, in a good-faith effort to resolve the issues raised by this Motion. Defendants and counsel for Plaintiffs were unable to agree on a resolution of this Motion. /s/ David Yohai CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of October, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a Notice of Electronic Filing to all counsel of record that are registered with the Court’s CM/ECF system. /s/David Yohai Case 6:14-cv-06011-GAP-TBS Document 135 Filed 10/09/15 Page 18 of 18 PageID 936