Andreas-Moses et al v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company

Filing 60

ORDER adopting 56 Report and Recommendations; granting 32 motion to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and that a ruling on the remaining three pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 31 , 33 , and 55 ) is deferred to permit resolution of those motions by the transferee court in in the Middle District of Florida. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 11/22/17. (rjb, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________
KAREN ANDREAS-MOSES,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
________________________________________________
Appearances:
Brian J. LaClair, Esq.
Blitman, King Law Firm
Franklin Center
443 North Franklin Street
Suite 300
Syracuse, NY 13204
Attorney for Plaintiffs
David V. Barszcz, Esq.
Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
Lytle & Barszcz
543 North Wymore Road, Suite 103
Maitland, FL 32751
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Hillary J. Massey, Esq.
Molly C. Mooney, Esq.
Patrick J. Bannon, Esq.
Robert T. Szyba, Esq.
Seyfarth, Shaw LLP
World Trade Center East
Two Seaport Lane, Suite 300
Boston, MA 02110
Attorneys for Defendant

5:16-CV-1387 (BKS/DEP)

Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Presently pending before this Court is Defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Company’s
motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay this action in accordance with the “first-filed” rule. (Dkt. No.
32). This matter was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles, who, on
October 30, 2017, issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that this motion be
granted and that this matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. With respect to two remaining pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 31, 33),
Magistrate Judge Peebles recommended that a ruling be deferred for resolution by the transferee
court. Magistrate Judge Peebles informed the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had
fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report, and that the failure to object to
the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (Dkt. No. 56, pp. 16-17). No
objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.
As no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, and the time for
filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error.
See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report and
Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court adopts it in its entirety.
For these reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 56) is ADOPTED in its
entirety; and it is further

2

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to transfer this action (Dkt. No. 32) is GRANTED,
and that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida; and it is further
ORDERED that a ruling on the remaining three pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 31, 33, and
55) is deferred to permit resolution of those motions by the transferee court in in the Middle
District of Florida.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 22, 2017

3