Hunter v. Riley et al
Filing
33
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 27 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting defendants' 22 Motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiff's claims against the West Virginia Office of Insurance Com missioner; and denying without prejudice defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiff's claims against Michael Riley, in order to allow additional development of the record concerning the status of the administrative proceeding. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 9/30/2016. (cc: counsel of record; United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:15-5508
MICHAEL D. RILEY, individually and
in his official capacity as Commissioner
of Insurance for West Virginia, and in
his official capacity as a Committee
Member of the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners; and THE WEST
VIRGINIA OFFICES OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The court having received the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (“PF&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L.
Tinsley, filed on August 9, 2016, pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); and having reviewed the record in this
proceeding; and there being no objections filed by any party to the
proposed findings and recommendation; and it appearing proper so to
do, it is ORDERED that the findings and conclusions made in the
proposed findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge be, and
they hereby are, adopted by the court.
As more fully set forth in the magistrate judge’s PF&R,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing dismissal on three
grounds: (1) that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6); (2) that the Eleventh
Amendment bars a lawsuit against defendants; and (3) that the court
should abstain from jurisdiction under the Younger abstention
doctrine in light of ongoing state proceedings.
Def. Memo. in Supp.
of Mot. to Dismiss at 4, 5, 6.
The magistrate judge recommends that the motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) should be denied
because plaintiff states a potentially cognizable Fourteenth
Amendment due process claim due to actions relating to the status
of plaintiff’s West Virginia insurance license.
PF&R at 8.
The magistrate judge further recommends that the West
Virginia Office of Insurance Commissioner is absolutely immune from
suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and should be dismissed from this
action.
PF&R at 10.
With respect to defendant Michael Riley,
because plaintiff seeks, in part, prospective injunctive relief “to
permanently enjoin [the defendants] from violating the state and
federal laws, constitutions and human rights described [in the
Complaint], the magistrate judge recommends that Riley is a proper
defendant under the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment
immunity, and therefore his dismissal under the Eleventh Amendment
immunity is not appropriate.
Pl. Compl. at 14; PF&R at 10.
2
With respect to defendants’ argument that this case must
be dismissed because the court cannot interfere with ongoing state
administrative proceedings regarding Hunter’s West Virginia
insurance license, the magistrate judge found the record to be
“insufficient for the court to determine whether there are ongoing
state proceedings of important state interest in which the
plaintiff’s claim raised herein could be addressed.”
PF&R at 14.
Under the abstention doctrine articulated in Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts should abstain from
jurisdiction when federal claims have or can be presented in ongoing
state judicial proceedings or administrative proceedings that
involve important state interests.
Hawaii Housing Auth. V. Midkiff,
467 U.S. 229, 237-38 (1984); Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm’n v. Garden
State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).
“Younger abstention is appropriate only in those cases in
which (1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding[;] (2) the
proceeding implicates important state interests[;] and (3) there is
an adequate opportunity to present the federal claims in the state
proceeding.”
Employers Resource Mgmt. Co. v. Shannon, 62 F.3d 1126,
1134 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing Middlesex County Ethics Commm., 457 U.S.
at 432).
Defendants contend that the three elements are met in this
3
case and that the court should therefore “abstain from interfering
with ongoing State proceedings.”
at 6, 7.
Memo. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss
First, there is an ongoing administrative proceeding that
was instituted by defendants against plaintiff in March of 2014.
Id.
Defendants state that “the administrative complaint is not yet
resolved because this matter was stayed upon Plaintiff’s filing of
her Complaint in this Court.”
Id.
Second, defendants state that
plaintiff can obtain judicial review of the decision from the
administrative hearing through an appeal to the West Virginia Circuit
Court, where she may also raise her constitutional challenges.
(citing W. Va. Code § 33-2-14).
Id.
Third, defendants assert that the
administrative hearing implicates the important state interest in
“regulating and licensing insurance producers . . . and protecting
consumers by setting standards and regulating the insurance
marketplace, including licensing individuals who seek to sell
insurance to West Virginia consumers.”
Id. at 6-7.
In plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss,
plaintiff argues that Younger does not apply in this case “because
according to [defendants], there are no ongoing state proceedings
. . . [and defendants] willfully terminated ‘state proceedings’ in
about March 2014.”
Pl. Opp. at 1.
In plaintiff’s complaint, she
alleges that in February 2014, she received a written notice from
defendants that they were filing an administrative complaint against
4
her seeking to discipline her because her insurance licenses were
revoked in Texas and Florida.
Pl. Compl. at 4.
She further alleges
that in May 2014, plaintiff advised defendants in writing that she
planned to file this action against them and within 10 days,
defendants responded in writing that the hearing of the
administrative complaint was continued and no specific future date
was provided.
Id. at 12-13.
Defendants have not pursued the
administrative complaint against plaintiff for more than 12 months.
Id.
Further, the online state based system used to show the status
of insurance licenses shows plaintiff’s license as “denied January
10, 2014.”
Id.
Because the magistrate judge found that the record was
unclear about whether a hearing had been or will be held and the
decision to be made by the insurance commissioner, he found that the
record was insufficient to determine the Younger abstention issue
and that the motion should be denied without prejudice in order to
fully determine the status of the administrative proceeding.
Id.
at 14.
The court finds that the record is unclear regarding the
status of the administrative hearing.
Inasmuch as defendant Riley
could have objected to the PF&R and informed the court the status
of the hearing, and he did not do so, the court cannot fully evaluate
5
an Employee Welfare Benefits Plan,
LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON,
a Massachusetts Corporation, and
DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
whether abstention is proper in this instance.
ORDER AND NOTICE
It is, therefore, Civ. P. 16.1, defendants’ motion to
Pursuant to L.R. ORDERED that it is ORDERED that the
following dates are hereby fixed as the time by or on which
dismiss be granted with respect to plaintiff’s claims against the
certain events must occur:
01/28/2016
Motions Insurance Commissioner. It is further
West Virginia Office ofunder F.R. Civ. P. 12(b), together with
supporting briefs, memoranda, affidavits, or other
such matter in support thereof. (All without
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss be deniedmotions
unsupported by memoranda will be denied without
prejudice plaintiff’s L.R. Civ. P. 7.1 (a)).
prejudice with respect to pursuant to claims against Michael Riley,
02/08/2016
Last day for development of the
in order to allow additionalRule 26(f) meeting. record concerning
02/15/2016
Last day to file Report of Parties= Planning
the status of the administrative proceeding.
Meeting. See L.R. Civ. P. 16.1.
02/22/2016 isScheduling conference this matter be, and it hereby
It
further ordered that at 4:30 p.m. at the Robert C.
Byrd United States Courthouse in Charleston, before
is, recommitted the United States unless canceled. Dwane L. Tinsley.
to undersigned, Magistrate Judge Lead counsel
directed to appear.
02/29/2016
Entry of scheduling order.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written
03/08/2016
Last day to serve F.R. Civ. P 26(a)(1) disclosures.
opinion and order to all counsel of record and the United States
The Clerk is requested to transmit this Order and
Magistrate Judge.
Notice to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented
parties.
DATED: September 5, 2016
DATED: January 30, 2016
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
6
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?