Heritagemark, LLC v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 03, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

HERITAGEMARK, LLC an OKLAHOMA § LIMITED LIABILITY COMMPANY, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-04513 § UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF § AMERICA, § § Defendant. § §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court is Defendant Unum Life Insurance Company of America’s (“Defendant’s”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Heritagemark, LLC’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Complaint for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 15. This Court referred the case to the Magistrate Judge to conduct all pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 29. On February 8, 2024, Judge Palermo issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. ECF No. 45. Defendant filed a timely partial objection to the R&R. ECF No. 46. Defendant objects to the portions of the R&R that recommend denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff did not file objections to the R&R. If timely objections are filed, a district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. However, if no timely 1 / 2 objection is made, the court need only review the R&R to determine whether it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Garcia v. Sessions, 2018 WL 6732889, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2018) (quoting Quinn v. Guerrero, 863 F.3d 353, 358 (Sth Cir. 2017)). Neither party objects to the R&R’s recommended dismissal of Plaintiff's extracontractual claims for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as conversion. Finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R’s recommendation and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with respect to these claims. Plaintiffs extracontractual claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which Defendant objected. However, the Court agrees with the conclusions and the reasoning of the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R’s recommendations and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs breach- of-contract and declaratory judgment claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas on this the 31st of March, 2024. WN D Coeds Keith P. Ellison United States District Judge

2/2