Moreno v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company et al
Filing
27
ORDER that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 25 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court. It is Ordered that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complai nt (Doc. 22 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is Ordered that Plaintiff's Third, Fourth and Fifth Claims of the First Amended Complaint are DISMISSED with leave to amend. It is Ordered that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 22 ) is DENIED as to Plaintiffs First and Second Claims (see attached PDF for complete information). Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 3/30/2015.(MFR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
12
13
) No. CV 14-2022-TUC-FRZ
)
) ORDER
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
Minnesota Life Insurance Company; et. al, )
)
)
Defendants.
)
Glenda Moreno,
14
15
Before the Court for consideration are the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
16
First Amended Complaint and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,
17
recommending the motion be granted in part and denied in part.
18
This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial
19
proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
20
§ 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2, Rules of Practice of the United States District
21
Court for the District of Arizona.
22
Defendants removed this action from state court and thereafter moved to dismiss the
23
Complaint. In response, Plaintiff conceded that the original Complaint was deficient and
24
filed the First Amended Complaint.
25
26
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle denied
Defendants’ first motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot.
27
The First Amended Complaint, arising out of an accidental death and dismemberment
28
insurance policy purchased by Plaintiff’s now deceased father, alleges the following five
1
claims for relief: (1) consumer fraud under A.R.S. Section 44-1521, et seq.; (2) insurance
2
fraud under A.R.S. Section 20-443, et. seq.; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) fraudulent
3
concealment; and (5) estoppel.
4
5
Before the Court for consideration is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint.
6
Magistrate Judge Pyle issued his Report and Recommendation, filed January 20, 2015,
7
recommending “that the District Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion to
8
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint . . . to the extent that Plaintiff’s common law and
9
estoppel claims, set out at Claims Three through Five, should be dismissed with leave to
10
amend. The Motion should be denied as to Plaintiff’s claims for statutory fraud, set out at
11
Claims One and Two.”
12
13
The Report and Recommendation sets forth a thorough factual and procedural
background and analysis of the claims under the applicable legal standards.
14
The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that they may file written
15
objections within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and
16
Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b) of Federal Rules of Civil
17
Procedure.
18
Defendants’ Objections to U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle’s Report and
19
Recommendation Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint
20
were timely filed. Defendants urge the Court to dismiss the entire First Amended Complaint,
21
based on Defendants’ contentions that Magistrate Judge Pyle erred in recommending that the
22
Court deny the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims, reasserting their arguments that Plaintiff
23
failed to plead reliance and lacks standing, and thus, the First Amended Complaint should
24
be dismissed without leave to amend..
25
Upon review and consideration of all matters presented and an independent review
26
of the record herein, including Defendants’ Objections to U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles R.
27
Pyle’s Report and Recommendation Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First
28
Amended Complaint (26), the Court finds that the findings of the Magistrate Judge as set
-2-
1
forth in the Report and Recommendation, shall be accepted and adopted as the findings of
2
fact and conclusions of law of this Court.
3
Based on the forgoing,
4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
5
Judge (Doc. 25) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of
6
law by this Court; accordingly
7
8
9
10
11
12
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint (Doc. 22) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Third, Fourth and Fifth Claims of the First
Amended Complaint are DISMISSED with leave to amend;
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint (Doc. 22) is DENIED as to Plaintiffs First and Second Claims;
13
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is referred back to Magistrate Judge
14
Charles R. Pyle for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance
15
with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2 of the Rules
16
of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Local Rules of
17
Civil Procedure.
18
All filings shall be designated: CV 14-2022 TUC-FRZ (CRP)
19
20
DATED this 30th day of March, 2015.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?