Chapman et al v. Scott M. Favre Public Adjuster, LLC et al

Filing 130

ORDER granting 36 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 38 Motion for Sanctions; granting 49 Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss; denying 52 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 63 Supplemental M otion for Summary Judgment, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss; denying 66 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Supplemented; denying 74 Rule 56(d) Motion in Opposition; denying 75 Motion to Strike; denying 79 Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; adopting 117 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Taylor B. McNeel on 3/10/2025. (MTS)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TAIWAN CHAPMAN and
JESSIE HAYNES

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL CASE NO. 1:23-cv-284-TBM-RPM

SCOTT M. FAVRE PUBLIC ADJUSTER,
LLC; CINDY LYNN FAVRE, as Executrix
of the Estate of Scott Michael Favre, Deceased;
CINDY LYNN FAVRE, as Trustee of the
Scott Michael Favre Revocable Trust

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This matter came before the Court on Plainti?s Taiwan Chapman and Jessie Haynes’ Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment [36], Motion for Sanctions [38], Rule 56(d) Motion in Opposition [74],
Motion to Strike [75], and Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [79]; Defendant Cindy Lynn
Favre’s—as Executrix of the Estate of Scott Michael Favre, Deceased, and as Trustee of the Scott
Michael Favre Revocable Trust—Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss
[49] and Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or,
Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss [63]; and Defendant Scott M. Favre Public Adjuster, LLC’s Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment [52] and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Supplemented [66].
At the hearing conducted on March 7, 2025, the Court, having considered the pleadings, the record,
the oral arguments of the parties, and the relevant legal authority, announced on the record its detailed
?nding and conclusions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plainti?s Taiwan Chapman and
Jessie Haynes’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [36] is GRANTED. Defendant Scott M. Favre

Public Adjuster, LLC’s counterclaim alleging a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendations
[117] entered by United States Magistrate Judge Robert P. Myers is ADOPTED as the opinion of the
court and the Plainti?s’ Motion for Sanctions [38] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Cindy Lynn Favre’s—as
Executrix of the Estate of Scott Michael Favre, Deceased, and as Trustee of the Scott Michael Favre
Revocable Trust—Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss [49] is
GRANTED. The Plainti?s’ claims against Cindy Lynn Favre—as Executrix of the Estate of Scott
Michael Favre, Deceased, and as Trustee of the Scott Michael Favre Revocable Trust—are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the Plainti?s’ constructive trust claim, which is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Scott M. Favre Public
Adjuster, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [52] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Cindy Lynn Favre’s—as
Executrix of the Estate of Scott Michael Favre, Deceased, and as Trustee of the Scott Michael Favre
Revocable Trust—Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss [63] is GRANTED. The Plainti?s’ claims against
Cindy Lynn Favre—as Executrix of the Estate of Scott Michael Favre, Deceased, and as Trustee of
the Scott Michael Favre Revocable Trust—are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the
Plainti?s’ constructive trust claim, which is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Scott M. Favre Public
Adjuster, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Supplemented [66] is DENIED.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plainti?s’ Rule 56(d) Motion in
Opposition [74] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plainti?s’ Motion to Strike [75] is
DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plainti?s’ Cross-Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment [79] is DENIED.
This, the 10th day of March, 2025.
___________________________
TAYLOR B. McNEEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3