Fire & Casualty Ins v. Trustmark Ins Co
ORDER: Defendant's Motion 161 to Restore the case to the active docket is GRANTED and Defendant's Motion 162 to Preclude further proceedings before the Magistrate Judge is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions 167 is DENIED, a nd Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt is DENIED without prejudice to renew. The matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Smith for an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's motion to enforce the judgment and report. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 5/7/2012.(Flagg, K.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, as
successor to FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT,
Civil No. 3:03cv1000(JBA)(TPS)
May 7, 2012
TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY,
RULING ON MOTIONS and ORDER OF REFERRAL
Defendant Trustmark Insurance Company (“Trustmark”) moves to preclude further
proceedings before Magistrate Judge Smith for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal
Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636 et seq. Plaintiff Fire and Casualty Insurance Company of
Connecticut (“FCIC”)1 opposes Trustmark’s motion and requests that sanctions enter against
Trustmark for delaying the proceedings. Oral argument was held May 2, 2012 before the
undersigned to whom this case has now transferred. For the reasons that follow, Trustmark’s
Motion to Preclude [Doc. No. 162] and FCIC’s Motion for Sanctions [Doc. No. 167] are denied.
The parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and protracted procedural history of this
case is presumed. FCIC and Trustmark have engaged in nine years of litigation related to their
May 23, 2003 arbitration award. Judgment was entered confirming the arbitration award on
September 25, 2003 [Doc Nos. 19 & 22], and since that time, there have been numerous post-
Arrowood Indemnity Company is the successor by merger in 2007 to Security Insurance
Company of Hartford, which in turn was the successor by merger in 2004 to Fire and Casualty
Insurance Company of Connecticut. (See Doc. No. 49-2, p. 1, n. 1).
judgment motions related to the enforcement of the judgment and the parties’ disputed
interpretation of certain provisions of the arbitration award. In 2006, the District Court (Dorsey,
J.) remanded this matter to the Arbitration Panel for a clarification of one aspect of the arbitration
award. The Arbitration Panel’s clarification was incorporated into an Amended Judgment on
June 1, 2007 [Doc. Nos. 47 & 48].
The current round of post-judgment motions commenced with FCIC’s motion for
contempt and to enforce judgment filed on November 25, 2008 [Doc. No. 49]. Trustmark
responded to FCIC’s motion by filing a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [Doc. No. 55].
On July 15, 2009, Judge Dorsey denied FCIC’s motion for contempt and enforcement of
judgment, holding that Trustmark had fully complied with the unambiguous judgment, and
denied Trustmark’s motion to dismiss as moot [Doc. No. 74]. FCIC moved for reconsideration
of the July 15, 2009 Ruling, and on October 13, 2009, Judge Dorsey granted FCIC’s motion for
reconsideration on the ground that the arbitration award contained an ambiguity [Doc. No. 84].
Accordingly, Judge Dorsey again remanded the award to the Arbitration Panel for additional
On July 6, 2010, FCIC filed notice that the Arbitration Panel had answered the Court’s
questions on remand to the Panel [Doc. No. 102]. On July 8, 2010, Trustmark moved for
reinstatement of the Court’s July 15, 2009 Order denying judgment [Doc. No. 103] or to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction, and on July 29, 2010 FCIC moved for an order granting its November 25,
2008 motion for judgment and contempt and for entry of judgment against Trustmark [Doc. No.
106], which Trustmark has moved to strike [Doc. No. 108]. These motions will be restored to
the active docket now that the case has been returned to active status.
An evidentiary hearing on FCIC’s motion for contempt and enforcement of judgment was
originally set for January 24, 2011 before Judge Dorsey. On January 20, 2011, the docket
reflects that this evidentiary hearing was rescheduled to February 2, 2011 and would be heard by
Magistrate Judge Smith. To date, Magistrate Judge Smith has conducted twelve days of
evidentiary hearing. The evidentiary hearing is currently scheduled to continue on May 15-17,
2012 [Doc. No. 152].
Trustmark moves to preclude further proceedings before the Magistrate Judge, arguing
that the proceedings are contrary to law for either of two reasons: 1) the current proceedings
amount to an evidentiary hearing on contempt, which only a district court may conduct; or 2) if it
is not a civil contempt proceeding, it is a non-jury trial on the merits, which is outside the limited
jurisdiction conferred under the Federal Magistrate Act.
Trustmark’s first ground for its motion is that the ongoing proceedings on FCIC’s
contempt motion exceed the Magistrate’s limited contempt powers pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(e). Before the Court can address FCIC’s motion for contempt, however, it must first rule on
FCIC’s motion to enforce the judgment, which requires interpretation of the judgment to which
findings on the parties’ actions will be applied. The parties agreed at oral argument that the
judgments are unambiguous although they dispute the proper interpretation. Unless and until the
Court determines that the judgment is to be enforced under FCIC’s interpretation of its terms and
that Trustmark contumaciously refused to comply, FCIC’s motion for contempt is premature.
Because FCIC’s motion for contempt is premature, it must be denied without prejudice, and
Trustmark’s motion relating to contempt powers is moot.
At oral argument, Trustmark argued that the proceeding before Magistrate Judge Smith is
necessarily a hearing on a motion for contempt because, at this stage in the litigation, the Court
only has jurisdiction to enforce the judgment through a finding of civil contempt pursuant to Rule
70 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court disagrees. While Rule 70 details certain
actions a district court may take to enforce a judgment for a specific act, the listed actions are not
the only avenues available to the Court to enforce or effectuate its judgments.
“As a general rule, once a federal court has entered judgment, it has ancillary jurisdiction
over subsequent proceedings necessary to vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees. This
includes proceedings to enforce the judgment.” Dulce v. Dulce, 233 F.3d 143, 146 (2d Cir. 2000)
(quotation marks and internal citation omitted). Without ancillary jurisdiction to enforce
judgments, “the judicial power would be incomplete and entirely inadequate to the purposes for
which it was conferred by the Constitution.” Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 356 (1996)
(internal quotations omitted). Once confirmed, an arbitration award becomes an enforceable
court order, “and, when asked to enforce such orders, a court is entitled to require actions to
achieve compliance with them.” Zeiler v. Deitsch, 500 F.3d 157, 170 (2d Cir. 2007). See also 9
U.S.C. § 13 (“The judgment [on a motion to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award]
shall be docketed as if it was rendered in an action. The judgment so entered shall have the same
force and effect, in all respects, as, and be subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a
judgment in an action; and it may be enforced as if it had been rendered in an action in the court
in which it is entered.”). Accordingly, the Court has ancillary jurisdiction to rule on FCIC’s
motion to enforce the judgment confirming the arbitration award and issue appropriate orders
enforcing the judgment apart from its contempt power.
The Court is also unpersuaded by the grounds for Trustmark’s alternative argument that
Magistrate Judge Smith lacks authority to conduct an evidentiary hearing on FCIC’s motion to
enforce judgment because the hearing constitutes a “non-jury trial on the merits.” The hearing
before Magistrate Judge Smith does not “go to the essence of the trial” as Trustmark argues in its
motion, particularly since the merits of the matter before the arbitrators cannot be re-litigated in
District Court. See Wallace v. Buttar, 378 F.3d 182, 189 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that a district
court cannot conduct a de novo review of an arbitration award and must give extreme deference
to arbitrators). As counsel agreed at oral argument, this matter is in a post-judgment posture, and
FCIC’s motion to enforce the judgment is a post-judgment motion. It is thus within a magistrate
judge’s authority pursuant to § 636(b)(3) to conduct a hearing and make a report and
recommendation to the district court on this post-judgment motion. See McCleod v. Quarles, 925
F.2d 853, 856 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding “that § 636(b)(3) authorizes a district court to refer to a
magistrate a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b), at least for the limited purpose of holding an
evidentiary hearing and preparing for the district court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition of the motion.”); Gaiters v. City of Catoosa, 226 Fed. Appx.
826, 829 (10th Cir. 2007) (“We have previously held that a district court may refer
post-judgment matters to a magistrate judge under the “additional duties” provision of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(3), so long as the district judge retains the ultimate responsibility for decision making.”)
(citing Colo. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen Constr. Co., 879 F.2d 809, 811
(10th Cir.1989)). Trustmark’s motion to preclude further evidentiary hearings before Judge
Smith on FCIC’s motion to enforce judgment is therefore denied
To clarify the referal to Magistrate Judge Smith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), he will
conduct an evidentiary hearing on FCIC’s motion to enforce the judgment and submit his report
to the Court. The proceedings scheduled before Magistrate Judge Smith on May 15-17, 2012,
which will proceed as scheduled, will conclude by May 17, 2012. To ensure their conclusion,
time limits will be imposed on the parties for the remainder of the proceeding. Plaintiff will have
six hours and Defendant will have seven hours. The total time consumed arguing and ruling on
an objection will be charged to the unsuccessful party. The evidentiary record will be deemed
submitted by the conclusion of the hearing on May 17, 2012. No additional hearing days will be
permitted on this motion.
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Further Proceedings Before
the Magistrate Judge [Doc. No. 162] is denied; Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions [Doc. No. 167]
is denied; Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt is denied without prejudice to renew; and the matter
is referred to Magistrate Judge Smith for an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to enforce
the judgment and report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 7th day of May, 2012.
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?