Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Jacques et al

Filing 35

ORDER adopting in part and denying in part Report and Recommendation re 31 ; denying 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 5/12/2009. (JMB) Modified on 5/12/2009 (JMB).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W ESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. D E C IS IO N AND ORDER 0 6 -C V - 4 4 4 A ANNE M. JACQUES and CRAIG JACQUES, Defendants. ----------------------------------CRAIG JACQUES, Counter and Cross-Claimant, v. ANNE M. JACQUES, Cross-Defendant. T h is case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Defendant Craig Jacques ("Craig") filed a motion for s u m m a ry judgment on February 15, 2008. On February 24, 2009, Magistrate J u d g e Foschio filed a Report and Recommendation, in which he denied Craig's m o tio n and granted summary judgment to defendant Anne Jacques ("Anne") sua s p o n te . Craig filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on March 20, 2 0 0 9 . Oral argument on the objections was held on May 8, 2009. P u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo d e te r m in a tio n of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which o b je c tio n s have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , and after reviewing the submissions and hearing argument fro m the parties, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n in part, as follows. F o r the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court a g re e s with Magistrate Judge Foschio that it may exercise subject matter ju ris d ic tio n over this case. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts so much of the R e p o rt and Recommendation as pertains to subject matter jurisdiction. T h e Court further agrees with Magistrate Judge Foschio that Craig's motion fo r summary judgment should be denied. Simply put, there is a factual dispute as to how the Kodak computer system at issue became updated 1) to log a phone c a ll requesting a change of beneficiary; or 2) to complete execution of that a p p a re n t request by replacing Craig with Anne as beneficiary of 50% of the life in s u ra n c e proceeds in question. Nonetheless, these updates did find their way in to the computer system. Craig argues, in essence, that the erroneous nature of th e s e updates can be inferred from the absence of direct evidence that Kodak e ve r received a completed change form. Anne argues that an affirmative effort to c h a n g e beneficiaries can be inferred from testimony that Kodak does not change b e n e fic ia r ie s without first receiving a completed change form. Both parties ask 2 th a t the Court draw certain inferences in their favor based on the existing facts. However, the plausibility of each side's inferences is a question of fact and th e re fo re not subject to resolution at the summary judgment stage. See Rattner v. Netburn, 930 F.2d 204, 209 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The function of the district court in c o n s id e rin g the motion for summary judgment is not to resolve disputed issues of fa c t but only to determine whether there is a genuine issue to be tried.") (citations o m itte d ). Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts so much of the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n as pertains to the denial of Craig's summary judgment motion. F o r this same reason plus an additional reason, the Court finds that s u m m a ry judgment should not be granted to Anne. "[A]lthough a district court m a y, on an appropriate record, grant summary judgment sua sponte--after giving th e party against which the court is contemplating such a decision notice and an o p p o rtu n ity to present evidence and arguments in opposition--the court, in c o n s id e r in g such a decision, is required to view the record in the light most fa vo ra b le to the party against which summary judgment is contemplated and to re s o lve all ambiguities and draw all factual inferences in favor of that party. Summary judgment is not appropriate if the evidence is such that a reasonable ju ry could return a verdict in favor of the party against which summary judgment is c o n te m p la te d ." NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. LHC Commc'ns, LLC, 537 F.3d 168, 1 7 8 -7 9 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). On the merits, a finder of fact could c o n c lu d e from the evidence that the decedent did not take any action to 3 im p le m e n t an intent to change beneficiaries beyond, possibly, a single telephone c a ll. This conclusion could be reached after drawing all reasonable inferences a g a in s t Anne, as the Court must when considering a summary judgment motion. See, e.g., W e g v. Macchiarola, 995 F.2d 15, 18 (2d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Additionally, the Court notes that Craig did not receive prior notice of the p o s s ib ility that Anne would receive summary judgment sua sponte. Craig's c o u n s e l advises the Court that Craig first learned of that possibility through the R e p o rt and Recommendation. Under these circumstances, the Second Circuit d is c o u ra g e s the granting of summary judgment sua sponte. See also B.F. G o o d ric h v. Betkoski, 99 F.3d 505, 531 (2d Cir. 1996) ("[W ]e again note that sua s p o n te summary judgment should generally only be granted after the losing party is given notice and an opportunity to present evidence and arguments in o p p o s itio n ."), overruled on other grounds by N.Y. v. Nat'l Servs. Indus., Inc., 352 F .3 d 682 (2d Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt Magistrate J u d g e Foschio's recommendation that Anne receive summary judgment sua s p o n te . For the reasons explained above, Craig's motion for summary judgment is d e n ie d . As the parties have indicated that discovery is complete, they are d ire c te d to appear before the Court on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. fo r a meeting to set a trial date. 4 T h e parties shall have 60 days from the docketing of this decision to make a n y motions under Rule 39(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SO ORDERED. s/ Richard J. Arcara HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATED: May , 2009 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?