Reunion Investment Limited, LLC et al v. Hartford Insurance Company, The et al

Filing 35

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan ; dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) ; finding as moot 32 Motion to Withdraw Documents(s); granting 20 Motion to Dismiss; granting 21 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 23 Motion to Dismiss (Re: 19 Amended Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

REUNION INVESTMENT LIMITED, LLC,
and FIRESTORM GENERAL
CONTRACTORS, INC.
Plaintiffs,
v.
HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-CV-0696-CVE-FHM

OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court is plaintiff Firestorm General Contractors, Inc.’s (Firestorm) opposed
motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 20), plaintiff Reunion Investment, LLC’s (Reunion) opposed motion to
dismiss (Dkt. # 21), defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’
first amended complaint (Dkt. # 23), and defendant’s motion to withdraw its motion to dismiss
plaintiffs’ amended complaint (Dkt. # 32).
On June 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition in Tulsa County District Court. Dkt. # 2-2, at
2. Plaintiff named The Hartford Insurance Company and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company as
defendants and alleged four claims for relief, including breach of contract, bad faith, breach of a
third party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment or a constructive trust. Id. Thereafter,
defendant removed the case to federal court. Dkt. # 2. On January 3, 2013, defendant filed its
answer and a counterclaim for declaratory judgment against Firestorm. Dkt. ## 12, 13, 14. In
addition, in its answer, defendant stated that plaintiffs’ petition incorrectly named The Hartford
Insurance Company as a defendant and that The Hartford Insurance Company is not an insurance

company nor a legal entity. Dkt. # 2, at 2. On January 24, 2013, plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint. Dkt. # 19. In the first amended complaint, plaintiffs named Hartford Casualty Insurance
Company as the sole defendant and added a fifth claim for relief based upon reformation. Id. at 1,
8. Plaintiffs thereafter filed two motions to dismiss requesting that the case be dismissed without
prejudice. Dkt. ## 20, 21. On February 5, 2013, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first
amended complaint. Dkt. # 23. On February 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to for
leave to file an answer to the counterclaim (Dkt. # 25), which was granted (Dkt. # 26).
On February 7, 2013, plaintiffs responded to defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint. Dkt. # 27. That same day, Firestorm filed an answer to defendant’s counterclaim. Dkt.
# 28. On February 8, 2013, the parties filed a joint status report (Dkt. # 29), which made it clear that
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company was the correct name for the defendant and that The Hartford
Insurance Company was not a defendant because it was not an insurance company nor a legal entity.
The Court thereafter entered an order directing the Court Clerk to correct the docket to show
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company as the sole defendant and counterclaimant and to terminate
The Hartford Insurance Company as defendant as well as any reference to “d/b/a Hartford
Spectrum.” Dkt. # 30.
In plaintiffs’ motions to dismiss, plaintiffs ask that the case be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) states that “an action may be dismissed
at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. If a defendant
has pleaded a counterclaim before being served with the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the action may
be dismissed over the defendant’s objection only if the counterclaim can remain pending for
independent adjudication.” In its response, defendant first argues that, because plaintiffs originally

2

named both The Hartford Insurance Company and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company as
defendants, defendant assumed that the dismissal of the case as to The Hartford Insurance Company
would be with prejudice. Dkt. ## 33, 34. Additionally, defendant notes that plaintiffs unilaterally
changed the caption of the case and removed The Hartford Insurance Company, and that, thereafter,
the Court entered an order directing the Court Clerk to correct the style of the case to reflect
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company as the sole defendant and counterclaimant. See Dkt. # 30.
Defendant thus requests that the case be dismissed with prejudice as to The Hartford Insurance
Company; however, defendant states that it has no objection to a dismissal without prejudice as to
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company. Dkt. ## 33, 34.
In this case, defendant’s counterclaim is solely for a declaratory judgment that it has no
contractual relationship with plaintiff Firestorm. Based on the status of these proceedings, that claim
could not “remain pending for independent adjudication.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Further, as to
any claims against Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, the sole defendant in this case, defendant
states it has no objection to a dismissal without prejudice. Finally, because defendant has
represented that The Hartford Insurance Company is not an insurance company nor legal entity,
there is no need to dismiss the case with prejudice as to that defendant. Therefore, plaintiffs’
motions to dismiss without prejudice should be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Firestorm General Contractors, Inc.’s
opposed motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 20) and plaintiff Reunion Investment, LLC’s opposed motion to
dismiss (Dkt. # 21) are granted.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company’s
motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (Dkt. # 23) and defendant’s motion to
withdraw its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint (Dkt. # 32) are moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this is a final order dismissing the case without
prejudice.
DATED this 15th day of February, 2013.

4