Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hanczyc v. Progressive Max Insurance Company, C19-39 RSM. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20191213d12 Visitors: 14
Filed: Dec. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND AGREED ORDER RE: INTERVENTION RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . COMES NOW, Intervening Plaintiff Progressive Max Insurance Company as Subrogee of Melinda C. Hanczyc (hereinafter "Intervening Plaintiff") and Plaintiff Melinda C. Hanczyc (hereinafter "Plaintiff") and Defendant United States of America (hereinafter "Defendant"), by and through their respective undersigned counsel of record, jointly submit this stipulation to allow Intervening Plaintiff leave to inter
More

STIPULATION AND AGREED ORDER RE: INTERVENTION

COMES NOW, Intervening Plaintiff Progressive Max Insurance Company as Subrogee of Melinda C. Hanczyc (hereinafter "Intervening Plaintiff") and Plaintiff Melinda C. Hanczyc (hereinafter "Plaintiff") and Defendant United States of America (hereinafter "Defendant"), by and through their respective undersigned counsel of record, jointly submit this stipulation to allow Intervening Plaintiff leave to intervene, and file their Complaint in Intervention in this case.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, between Plaintiff, Intervening Plaintiff, and Defendant as follows:

A. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages against Defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 for damages arising from a motor-vehicle collision that occurred on January 21, 2016 between Plaintiff and Defendant.

B. Intervening Plaintiff was the insurer of Plaintiff, pursuant to a certain policy of insurance, and Progressive is making this claim as a result of its subrogation rights and contractual rights (including right of recovery, reimbursement, and/or and ratification) arising from said policy of insurance and payments made pursuant thereto for property damages for the benefit of Plaintiff.

C. As Subrogee of Plaintiff, Intervening Plaintiff claim an interest relating to the property or transactions which are the subject of this action, and they are so situated that the disposition of this action in their absence may impair or impede their ability to protect that interest, within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 24(a).

D. Since Intervening Plaintiff is entitled to bring its' claim for property damages against Defendant, they must be joined pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 19(a) because, in their absence, complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties to the action.

E. The Intervening Plaintiff, Defendant, and Plaintiff agree and consent to the Intervening Plaintiffs' filing of the Complaint in Intervention, filed contemporaneously, in this action and to the Intervening Plaintiffs' participation in this action as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 24(a).

JAMES M. KRISTOF, P.S. /s/James M. Kristof James M. Kristof, WSBA #9317 Attorney for Intervening Plaintiff UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PARK CHENAUR & ASSOC., INC., P.S. /s/Heather Carney Costanzo /s/Miklos Pusztai Heather Carney Costanzo, FL #37378 Miklos "Mick" Pusztai, WSBA #32024 Attorney for Defendant Attorney for Plaintiff

ORDER

Pursuant to the above Stipulation by and through the parties hereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Intervening Plaintiff Progressive Max Insurance Company as Subrogee of Melinda C. Hanczyk is granted leave to intervene in this action pursuant to Rules 19(a) and 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may file their Complaint in Intervention.

Presented by: JAMES M. KRISTOF, P.S. /s/James M. Kristof James M. Kristof, WSBA #9317 Attorney for Intervening Plaintiff
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer