Virginia Beach Racquet Club North Associates, L.P. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, et al
Filing
35
ORDER accepting the findings and recommendations set forth in the report of U.S. Magistrate Judge Miller; denying 2 Motion to Realign ; granting 13 Motion to Remand. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 1/5/2012. (rsim)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUFlT
FILED
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGIN [A
Norfolk Division
ci i r-.K. o -S \:i";:;;cr court
VIRGINIA BEACH RACQUET CLUB
NORTH ASSOCIATES, L.P.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:1 Icv447
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
CONNECTICUT,
WILLIS OF VIRGINIA, INC.,
And SHIRLEY FOREHAND,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is currently before the Court to resolve objections to the Magistrate Judge's
report and recommendation.
Plaintiff, Virginia Beach Racquet Club North Associates, L.P. ("the Club"), brought
several claims in the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach against Defendants, The
Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut ("Travelers"), its insurer, along with Willis of
Virginia, Inc. ("Willis") and Shirley Forehand ("Forehand"), an employee of Willis who served
as the agent and broker for the Travelers insurance policy. The Club attempts to recover losses it
sustained when its indoor tennis facility collapsed under the weight of heavy snowfall.
On August 11, 2011, Travelers removed this case to this Court and filed a Motion to
Realign Defendants Willis and Forehand, claiming that these parties were more properly
plaintiffs because their interests in the dispute were adverse to Travelers.1 See Def.'s Mem.
Supp. Mot. Realign Parties 1, ECF No. 3. The Club opposed the motion and filed a Motion to
Remand the case to the Virginia Beach Circuit Court.
This Court, on September 21,2011, entered an order designating United States
Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller ("Magistrate Judge Miller") to conduct hearings and submit
proposed findings of fact and, if applicable, recommendations for the disposition of these
motions.2 On October 12, 2011, Magistrate Judge Miller filed his report and recommendation
("the Report") in which he recommended that Travelers' Motion to Realign be DENIED and the
Club's Motion to Remand be GRANTED. The Report also advised the parties of their right to
file written objections to Magistrate Judge Miller's findings and recommendations. On October
26,2011, Travelers filed objections to the Report, and on November 7,2011, the Club filed its
opposition to Travelers' objections.
When reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation on non-dispositive
matters, the Court does not conduct de novo review. Rather, it "must consider timely objections
and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(a).
In determining whether Willis and Forehand would be aligned more properly as plaintiffs,
courts of the Fourth Circuit apply the "principal purpose test." According to this test, the Court
1 Travelers also filed a Motion to Dismiss Count IV of the Complaint. However, because
the Court affirms Magistrate Judge Miller's recommendations, the Court views it as appropriate
to reserve the resolution of this motion for the Virginia Beach Circuit Court.
2 Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(l)(B), "a judge may also designate a magistrate judge to
conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed
findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition ..."
must "[fjirst... determine the primary issue in the controversy. Next, the court should align the
parties according to their positions with respect to the primary issue. If the alignment differs
from that in the complaint, the court must determine whether complete diversity continues to
exist." U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. A &SMfg. Co., Inc., 48 F.3d 131,133 (4th Cir. 1995).
In recommending that Travelers' motion be denied, Magistrate Judge Miller concluded
that the actual controversy in this case hinged upon determining which parties, if any, were
responsible for the alleged underpayment of the Club's losses. See Mag. Judge's R&R 5, ECF
No. 32. Magistrate Judge Miller found that many of the allegations contained within the
Plaintiffs complaint "present a fact-intensive dispute about the degree to which any of these
parties bears responsibility for the underinsurance alleged." Id. at 6. In other words, he
concluded that the principal purpose of this dispute was determining liability for the
underpayment. That finding was predicated largely upon the fact that the Club's claims were not
based primarily on the language of their policy with Travelers. Notwithstanding any liability
determination respecting Travelers, both Defendants Willis and Forehand could still be held
liable.
It is undisputed that the Club's coverage under this policy is part of this litigation;
however, it is not the foremost issue upon which this case focuses. Nothing in Travelers'
objections suggests that Magistrate Judge Miller's findings were "clearly erroneous" or "contrary
to law." The Club's complaint clearly sets forth allegations which show that the Court should
not construe Willis and Forehand as plaintiffs to this action. In light of these facts and the
arguments which Magistrate Judge Miller details in the Report, the Court concludes that
realignment would be improper.
The Court has carefully and independently reviewed the record in this case and the
objections to the Report. Having done so, the Court finds that there is no merit to the objections
of the Defendant. Accordingly, the Court does hereby accept the findings and recommendations
set forth in Magistrate Judge Miller's report in the case at bar.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Realign is DENIED and
Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be REMANDED to the Circuit Court for
the City of Virginia Beach.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Raymond A'Jackson
Norfolk, Virginia
January^ ,2012
tynited States District Judg
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?