State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Cottrell
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO DISMISS DKT. NO. 10 . DENIES AS MOOT 9 Motion for Summary Judgment. DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE State Farms complaint dkt. no. 1 and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order and remove this case from its active. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 7/31/2014. (Copy counsel of record via CM/ECF) (jmm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
//
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13CV205
(Judge Keeley)
MICHAEL S. COTTRELL,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 10]
Pending before the Court is the plaintiff’s, State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), unopposed motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Dkt. No. 10). For the reasons that follow, the Court
GRANTS State Farm’s motion.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case arises from
December 11, 2011.
an ATV accident that occurred on
On that day, Kenneth Neel (“Neel”) drove the
ATV he was operating off a public county road and onto the
defendant’s, Michael S. Cottrell (“Cottrell”), property.
Neel
proceeded to hit Cottrell with his ATV, causing severe injuries to
Cottrell.
On March 27, 2013, Cottrell sued Neel in the Circuit Court of
Marion County, West Virginia, seeking damages for the injuries he
suffered as a result of the accident.
State Farm, Cottrell’s
automobile insurance provider, subsequently filed an answer to
STATE FARM v. MICHAEL S. COTTRELL
1:13CV205
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 10]
Cottrell’s complaint pursuant to West Virginia Code § 33-6-31,
indicating that Cottrell’s uninsured motorist coverage does not
include protection for accidents caused by off road vehicles.
State Farm subsequently filed this declaratory judgment action
on September 12, 2013, seeking a declaration that it is not
obligated to provide any insurance coverage for the claims asserted
by Cottrell in his pending state court action. (Dkt. No. 1). After
the instant action was initiated, however, the Circuit Court of
Marion County granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment,
which resolved the entire controversy between State Farm and
Cottrell. State Farm therefore filed the pending motion to dismiss
on August 14, 2013, arguing that the state court’s decision renders
this case moot.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows
a plaintiff, with the Court’s permission and subject to the terms
the Court deems proper, to dismiss an action without prejudice at
any time.
The purpose of this rule is “freely to allow voluntary
dismissals unless the parties will be unfairly prejudiced.” Davis
v. USX Corp., 819 F.2d 1270, 1273 (4th Cir. 1987). District courts
have discretion to decide whether a motion for voluntary dismissal
2
STATE FARM v. MICHAEL S. COTTRELL
1:13CV205
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 10]
should be granted.
Id.
In deciding such a motion, the district
court must “focus primarily on protecting the interests of the
defendants” and preventing the defendants from suffering from plain
legal prejudice.
Id.
III. DISCUSSION
The state court’s order granting State Farm’s motion for
summary judgment resolved the entire controversy between State Farm
and Cottrell. Cottrell therefore has no potential claims for
reimbursement against State Farm, and this case is now moot. Thus,
the Court finds that dismissing this case would not burden or
prejudice Cottrell in any way.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, the Court:
1) GRANTS State Farm’s motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 10);
2) DENIES AS MOOT State Farm’s motion for summary judgment
(dkt. no. 9);
3) DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE State Farm’s complaint (dkt. no.
1); and
4) DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from its active
docket.
It is SO ORDERED.
3
STATE FARM v. MICHAEL S. COTTRELL
1:13CV205
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 10]
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of
the Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies
of both Orders to counsel of record.
DATED: July 31, 2014.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?