From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Sep 28, 2006
Civil Action No. 00-cv-01841-LTB-PAC (D. Colo. Sep. 28, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 00-cv-01841-LTB-PAC.

September 28, 2006


ORDER


The plaintiff, Ricky Eugene Clark, purports in his complaint to represent the following putative class:

All injured persons covered under a State Farm automobile insurance policy who were not offered extended coverage as required by C.R.S. § 10-4-710 of the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act, and who were not provided the additional benefits provided for therein.

The defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), disputes the relation between this proposed class and its allegedly wrongful conduct from which Mr. Clark's damages here resulted. It suggests a class definition more limited in scope. It points out that resolution of the question how best to define the class will streamline subsequent resolution of Rule 23 issues.

I agree that resolution will most efficiently be achieved in stages. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) Mr. Clark shall, within 30 days of this date, file a brief in support of his class definition;

2) State Farm shall, within 20 days after Mr. Clark's filing, file a response; and

3) Mr. Clark shall, within 10 days after the filing of State Farm's response, file any reply.


Summaries of

Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Sep 28, 2006
Civil Action No. 00-cv-01841-LTB-PAC (D. Colo. Sep. 28, 2006)
Case details for

Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:RICKY EUGENE CLARK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Sep 28, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 00-cv-01841-LTB-PAC (D. Colo. Sep. 28, 2006)