Juan Cervantes v. Bridgefield Casualty Insurance

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00081-JLW. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999981069]. [16-1263, 16-1324]

Appeal: 16-1263

Doc: 30

Filed: 12/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1263

JUAN R. CERVANTES,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1324

JUAN R. CERVANTES,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Joe L. Webster,
Magistrate Judge. (1:15-cv-00081-JLW)

Submitted:

November 29, 2016

Decided:

December 6, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 16-1263

Doc: 30

Filed: 12/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. David Stradley, WHITE & STRADLEY,
Carolina; Brian M. Ricci, RICCI LAW FIRM,
Carolina, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, Raleigh,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

PLLC, Raleigh, North
PA, Greenville, North
Jessica C. Tyndall,
North Carolina, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1263

Doc: 30

Filed: 12/06/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Juan

R.

Cervantes

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under

Fed.

Insurance

R.

Civ.

Company

P.

12(b)(1),

and

(“Bridgefield”)

Bridgefield

cross-appeals

Casualty
from

the

district court’s orders denying Bridgefield’s motions to stay
discovery and for a protective order, and granting, in part,
Cervantes’ motions to compel and for sanctions.
Cervantes’

appeal,

reversible

we

error.

have

We

reviewed

agree

with

the
the

With respect to

record

and

district

find

court

no

that

“persuasive data” does not exist convincing us that the North
Carolina Supreme Court would disagree with the decisions of the
North Carolina Court of Appeals relied on by the district court.
See

Assicurazioni

Generali,

1002-03 (4th Cir. 1998).

S.p.A.

v.

Neil,

160

F.3d

997,

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal

of Cervantes’ complaint substantially for the reasons stated by
the district court.

Cervantes v. Bridgefield Cas. Ins. Co., No.

1:15-cv-00081-JLW (M.D.N.C. Feb. 11, 2016).
the

district

court’s

dismissal

of

Because we affirm

Cervantes’

dismiss Bridgefield’s cross-appeal as moot.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

complaint,

we

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3