First American Title Insurance Company v. Hegedus et al

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying 51 MOTION to Vacate 49 Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Order on Motion to Dismiss filed by James A. Hegedus, Virginia Hegedus. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 9/20/12. (ntl)

I
1
,j

I
i

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 10-99-LPS-MPT

V.

JAMES A. HEGEDUS, ET AL.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Vacate ("Motion") this Court's
August 2, 2012 Order (D.I. 49) adopting the Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), issued by
Magistrate Judge Thynge on June 21, 2012 (D.I. 47), denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
and Request for Relief (D.I. 17), which was construed by the Court as a motion for judgment on
the pleadings with respect to Defendants' counterclaims (see D.l. 41).
Having reviewed the Motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion (D.I.
51) is DENIED.
The Court adopted the R&R for two reasons: 1) its application of the law to the issues
raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings; and 2) Defendants did not timely object to
the R&R. Nothing in Defendants' Motion alters either ofthese grounds.
Defendants make no effort to argue that the R&R's legal analysis is incorrect. Instead,
they contend primarily that they did not receive a copy of the R&R. The Court understands that,
consistent with the Court's ordinary practice, copies of the R&R were sent to Defendants via
U.S. Mail, at their address of record, just as copies of every other document docketed by the

Court have been sent to them. The Court presumes that these materials placed in the mail were
received at the address to which they were sent. See generally In re Cendant Corp. Prides Litig.,
311 F.3d 298, 304 (3d Cir. 2002). Therefore, Defendants' claim that they did not receive the
R&R does not provide a reason that "justifies [the] relief' sought by Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(6).
Defendants' additional allegation that Plaintiff engaged in improper ex parte contacts
with Judge Thynge, and that Defendants have been deprived of due process, lack any evidentiary
basis. Defendants' contention appears to rest on their belief that the Court did not mail the R&R
to them. As explained above, the Court understands that the R&R was sent to Defendants by
U.S. mail to their address of record.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to meet and confer and
Plaintiff is to provide the Court, on behalf of all parties, a joint status report, no later than
October 5. 2012, indicating the parties' availability for a pretrial conference and trial and the

length of trial requested.

September 20, 2012

f

I