Martin v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's 11 MOTION to Remand to Circuit Court; denying as moot Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.s 3 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot Defendant State Farm Fire an d Casualty Co.s 6 MOTION to Stay; denying as moot Defendant Brian Smiths 14 MOTION to Dismiss; directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 10/10/2018. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

SAMUEL J. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-00473

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Samuel J. Martin’s (“Martin”) motion to remand.1
(ECF No. 11.) As stated in the second footnote of the Court’s memorandum opinion and order
entered on this date on the motion to remand in Pettit v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
et al, the briefing in the present motion to remand are virtually identical to the briefing in the
Pettit.2 Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the reasons discussed in that memorandum opinion and
order, GRANTS Martin’s motion to remand, (ECF No. 11), and REMANDS the case to the

Also pending before the Court is Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.’s (“State Farm”) motions to stay and
dismiss, (ECF Nos. 3, 6), and Defendant Brian Smith’s (“Smith”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 14.) As this
memorandum opinion and order is remanding the case to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, the
Court DENIES AS MOOT these motions. (ECF Nos. 3, 6, 14.)
2
The Court notes that the dates on which the statute of limitations could have begun to run are different in the present
case than in Pettit. In the present case, State Farm argues that the statute of limitations on Martin’s UTPA claim in
began to run in June 2005 when its agent and co-defendant, Smith, provided plaintiff’s counsel with the UM offer
forms. Thus, State Farm argues, Martin’s UTPA claim against Smith expired in June 2006. (See ECF No. 19 at 6.)
However, Martin argues, similar to the plaintiff in Pettit, that his UTPA claim against Smith was tolled by the
discovery rule due to State Farm and Smith’s alleged misrepresentations and concealment. (See ECF No. 21 at 4–6.)
As the factual scenarios and arguments are the same in both cases, the Court’s analysis and ruling in Pettit applies to
the present case.
1

Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to
remove this matter from the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

October 10, 2018