Regal Logistics, LLC v. Next Insurance US Company

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM ORDER to Lift Stay; Denying as Moot 15 Motion for Discovery Discovery of Expert Report and Exhibits; Granting 20 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; Denying as Moot 22 Motion to Dismiss; Dismissing Case with prejudice. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 1/28/2025. (bas, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
REGAL LOGISTICS, LLC,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*
Civil Action No. RDB-22-2050
*

NEXT INSURANCE US COMPANY,
*

Defendant.
*
*

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM ORDER
The underlying Complaint for Declaratory Relief in the above-captioned case was
initially filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland, on June 29, 2022.
(ECF No. 3.) In brief, the litigation results from a January 18, 2021 fire at the business
premises of the Plaintiff Regal Logistics, LLC (“Regal”). There was substantial “property
damage to personal property belonging to third parties” at Regal’s facility. Regal made a claim
for liability coverage with the Defendant Next Insurance US Company (“Next Insurance”),
from which it had obtained liability insurance. On August 15, 2022, Defendant filed its
Answer (ECF No. 4) in state court, acknowledging the existence of its insurance policy but
removing this case to this Court based on diversity of citizenship. (ECF No. 1.)
On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a consent motion requesting an extension of
time, noting Plaintiff’s representative who is the sole member of the LLC and a named insured
on the insurance policy, was the victim of a battery that has left him unable to participate in
the discovery process and that it was uncertain when he would recover. (ECF No. 13.) The
Court granted that motion the same day. (ECF No. 14.)

On December 5, 2022, Defendant filed a “Motion for Discovery of Expert Report and
Exhibits” (ECF No. 15), which remains pending, though it appears no motion or
memorandum in support was attached. Before the Court could address the Motion, the parties
filed consent motions to stay (ECF Nos. 16, 17), noting the Plaintiff’s representative remained
unable to participate in the litigation and it was uncertain when he would recover. The Court
promptly stayed the case indefinitely (ECF No. 18).
On February 5, 2024, this Court entered an Order directing the Plaintiff to show cause
why the case should not be dismissed, (ECF No. 19), noting the failure of Regal to prosecute this
case and proceed with any claims. That same day, Plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw his
appearance as attorney for Regal, (ECF No. 20), and also responded to the show cause order,
(ECF No. 21). Within the Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel on Behalf of the
Plaintiff (ECF No. 20), which remains pending, counsel indicated that he had been notified in
March 2023 that Plaintiff’s representative had passed away, and further indicated that, while
he had made “numerous efforts to contact [his client] or his heirs to discuss this
action[,] . . . such efforts have been fruitless.” His response to the show cause order (ECF
No. 21) summarized the motion to withdraw appearance and stated that “Counsel is not aware
of any claims that have been made . . . arising from the underlying fire-loss,” but indicated that
it was possible that such claims have been made. Accordingly, it was requested that any
dismissal should be without prejudice.
On August 6, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22), which also
remains pending on this Court’s docket.

Therein, Defendant noted: “to the best of

Defendant’s knowledge and belief, no third-parties have initiated any claims against Plaintiff

2

for property damage,” emphasizing the statute of limitations for any third-parties to make a
claim regarding the January 18, 2021 fire had since expired. Accordingly, the Defendant
requested that this Court dismiss the action with prejudice.
The Plaintiff Regal has failed to prosecute this matter against the Defendant Next
Insurance, and has failed to show why this case should not be dismissed WITH PREJUDICE
in light of no evidence of any claims having been filed. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED
this 28th day of January, 2025, that:
1. The Stay Order shall be LIFTED;
2. The Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel on Behalf of the Plaintiff (ECF
No. 20) is GRANTED;
3. The Defendant’s pending motions—the Motion for Discovery of Expert Report
and Exhibits (ECF No. 15); and the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) shall be
DENIED AS MOOT;
4. This case shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
5. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case; and
6. The Clerk shall transmit copies of the foregoing Order to counsel of record.
/s/
Richard D. Bennett
United States Senior District Judge

3