Hoffer v. Grange Insurance Company

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT of the magistrate judge 14 in its entirety, DENYING deft's motion 6 to strike Para 32 of pltf's complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(f) & GRANTING deft's motion 6 for more definite stmt pursuant to FRCP 12(e) to extent it pertains to pltf's statutory bad faith claim, & DIRECTING pltf to file amended complaint providing mor definite stmt of legal & factual basis for any statutory bad faith claims pursuant to 42 PA.CONS.STAT. 8371 w/in 14 days of date of this order w/ deft to file responsive pleading in acc w/ FRCP. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/23/14. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OLIVIA HOFFER,
Plaintiff,
v.
GRANGE INSURANCE CO.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-0262
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2014, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 14)
of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending the court deny defendant’s
motion (Doc. 6) to strike paragraph 32 of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(f) but grant, in part, defendant’s motion seeking a more definite
statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), wherein the magistrate
judge observes that the allegations contained in paragraph 32 are “unobjectionable and
indeed quite necessary” to support plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and not properly
subject to a motion to strike, (Doc. 14 at 7), but that for purposes of streamlining the
litigation and clarifying plaintiff’s claims, plaintiff should be directed to file a more
definite statement of her statutory bad faith claim pursuant to 42 PA . CONS. STAT . § 8371,
(Doc. 14 at 8-9), and, following an independent review of the motion, and it appearing
that neither party has objected to the report, and that there is no clear error on the face

of the record,1 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that “failing
to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in
forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level”), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED in its entirety.

2.

Defendant’s motion (Doc. 6) to strike paragraph 32 of plaintiff’s complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) is DENIED. Defendant’s
motion (Doc. 6) for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(e) is GRANTED to the extent it pertains to plaintiff’s
statutory bad faith claim.

1

When parties fail to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the Federal Magistrates Act does not require a district court to
review the report before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). As a
matter of good practice, however, the Third Circuit expects courts to “afford some
level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” Henderson v.
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). The advisory committee notes to Rule
72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that “[w]hen no timely
objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b),
advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating that “the
failure of a party to object to a magistrate’s legal conclusions may result in the loss
of the right to de novo review in the district court”); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F. Supp. 2d
676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (holding that the court’s review is conducted under the
“plain error” standard); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (holding
that the court’s review is limited to ascertaining whether there is “clear error on the
face of the record”); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (holding
that the court will review the report and recommendation for “clear error”). The
court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in
accordance with this Third Circuit directive.

3.

Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an amended complaint providing a more
definite statement of the legal and factual basis for any statutory bad faith
claim pursuant to 42 PA . CONS. STAT . § 8371 within fourteen (14) days of the
date of this order. Defendant thereafter shall file a responsive pleading in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania