Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, The et al v. Davis et al

Filing 91

MEMORANDUM OPINION-re: R&R(86 in 7:11-cv-01721-RRA, 131 in 7:11-cv-02214-RRA). The court is of the opinion that the recommendation ought to be, and hereby is ADOPTED and ACCEPTED as the opinion of this court. The court specifically determines that the motions are due to be DENED. Signed by Judge Robert B Propst on 1/23/2013. Associated Cases: 7:11-cv-01721-RRA, 7:11-cv-02214-RRA(AVC)

FILED
2013 Jan-23 AM 10:26
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
THE CHARTER OAK FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY; and
TRAVELERS PROPERTY
CASUALTY COMPANY OF
AMERICA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GRACIE DAVIS, as personal
representative of the estate of GREGORY
D. CHANEY; MARLA SARTAIN
CASTILLO, as personal representative
of the estate of SERGIO CASTILLO
RIVAS; DANIEL PELAYO SILVERIO;
and CORNELIUS DANCY,

The Estate of SERGIO CASTILLO
RIVAS, by and through MARLA
SARTAIN CASTILLO, personal
representative and administratrix
of The Estate of Sergio Rivas,
deceased;
Plaintiff,
v.
KATHY CREPPEL GALLEGOS,
An individual; TRAVELERS
PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA;
THE CHARTER OAK FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

LEAD CASE
CIVIL ACTION NO.
CV-11-RRA-01721-W

MEMBER CASE
CIVIL ACTION NO.
CV-11-RRA-2214-W

Memorandum Opinion
This is a consolidated civil action. Before the court is the plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate
and remand (doc. 41, in CV-11-RRA-1721; doc. 36, in CV-11-RRA-2214); the plaintiff’s
amended motion to bifurcate and remand (doc. 42, in CV-11-RRA-1721; doc. 38, in
CV-11-RRA-2214); the plaintiff’s supplemental and renewed motion to remand (doc. 44, in
CV-11-RRA-1721; doc. 51, in CV-11-RRA-2214); and the plaintiff’s supplemental motion
to remand (doc. 79 in CV-11-RRA-1721; doc. 109, in CV-11-RRA-2214). On December 7,
2012, the magistrate recommended that the motions be denied. (Doc. 86.) No objections
have been filed.
Having carefully considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the
report and recommendation, and the objections thereto, the court is of the opinion that the
recommendation ought to be, and hereby is ADOPTED and ACCEPTED as the opinion of
this court. The court specifically determines that the motions are due to be DENIED. An
appropriate order will be entered.
DONE this 23rd day of January, 2013.

ROBERT B. PROPST
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2