Holloway Lodging (222 Benmar) LLC et al v. ACE American Insurance Co.

Filing 40

ORDER ACCEPTING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONOF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 37 Memorandum and Recommendations, denying 34 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment .The Parties shall submit a Proposed Scheduling Order for all remaining unexpired dates no later than December 10, 2024. (Signed by Judge Drew B Tipton) Parties notified. (kmp4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
HOLLOWAY LODGING
(222 BENMAR), LLC, and
HOLLOWAY LODGING
(16666 NORTHCHASE), LLC,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
ACE AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

November 26, 2024
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-01982

ORDER ACCEPTING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the October 11, 2024, Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. (Dkt. No. 37).
Judge Bray made findings and conclusions and recommended denying Plaintiffs
Holloway Lodging (222 Benmar) LLC and Holloway Lodging (16666 Northchase) LLC’s
(“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 34), as to Defendant ACE
American Insurance Company (“ACE”), (see Dkt. No. 37).
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). On October 25, 2024, Plaintiffs objected to
the M&R, (Dkt. No. 38), incorporating by reference the objections to the M&R filed in a
related case, (see 4:22-CV-01745, Dkt. No. 57). On November 8, 2024, ACE responded to
Plaintiffs’ objections, (Dkt. No. 39), also incorporating by reference the responses filed in
the related case, (4:22-CV-01745, Dkt. No. 58).

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court must “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this
de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which
objections have been made and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendations for plain error. While the Court does not adopt the reasoning by
Judge Bray, the Court agrees with the conclusion—that is, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 34), should be DENIED.
The Parties shall submit a Proposed Scheduling Order for all remaining unexpired
dates no later than December 10, 2024.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on November 26, 2024.

___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2