Continental Casualty Company v. Americana Art China Company Inc. et al

Filing 23

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS- denying 8 Joint MOTION to Dismiss. Please note that when filing Objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), briefing consists solely of the Objections (no longer than ten (10) pages) and the Response to the Objections (no longer than ten (10) pages). No further briefing shall be permitted with respect to objections without leave of the Court. Objections to R&R due by 3/14/2013. Signed by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 2/25/2013. (lih)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
V.

)
)
)
)
)
)

AMERICANA ART CHINA CO., INC.,
and FOXFIRE PRINTING AND
PACKAGING, INC.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 11-1172-GMS-SRF

)
)
)
)
)
)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
At Wilmington this 25th day of February, 2013, a combined Motion to Dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction submitted by defendant Americana Art China Co., Inc. ("Americana")
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and a joint Motion to Dismiss based upon the abstention
doctrine having been filed by all defendants (D.I. 8) (the "Motions"), and the parties having
notified the court of a global settlement to resolve the present insurance coverage action and the
related, underlying case pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois (D.I. 21; D.I. 22), I recommend that the court deny defendant Americana's motion and
the defendants' joint motion without prejudice to renew the Motions in the event matters pending
in the Northern District of Illinois do not result in a resolution of the claims asserted in the
present litigation.
Subject to the oral order of January 29,2013, a joint status report shall be due to the court
on or before Monday, April29, 2013.
This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B), Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(l), and D. Del. LR 72.1. The parties may serve and file specific written objections

within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The failure of a party to object to legal conclusions may result in the loss
of the right to de novo review in the district court. See Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 87879 (3d Cir. 1987); Sincavage v. Barnhart, 171 F. App'x 924,925 n.l (3d Cir. 2006).
The parties are directed to the Court's Standing Order In Non-Pro Se Matters For
Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated November 16, 2009, a copy of which is
available at http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders/general-orders.

Dated: February 25, 2013