Maria Cortinas v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company

Opinion

FILED April 08, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION BY: NM DEPUTY MARINA CORTINAS, et al., : Plaintiffs, § § v. : LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL § NO. SA-22-CV-00544-OLG-HJB INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY § INSURANCE CORPORATION, § SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY § OF INDIANA, and LM INSURANCE § CORPORATION, . : Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed January 13, 2025, concerning the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 109) and Consolidated Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 141) filed by Defendants. (See R&R, Dkt. No. 155.) A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within fourteen days. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The parties, through counsel, were electronically served with a copy of the R&R on January 14, 2025, and timely filed their objections by the extended deadline of February 3, 2025 (see Dkt. Nos. 157, 158). When a party objects to an R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination as to “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1982), overruled on other

grounds by Douglass y. U.S. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Any portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221. The Court has reviewed the entirety of the R&R de novo and finds that it is in all things correct and should be accepted. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 155) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 109) and Consolidated Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 141) are GRANTED IN PART, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART, and DENIED IN PART as follows: the Motions are GRANTED as to Plaintiffs Tanya Rawlins, the Odums, the Mitchells. and the Baiottos’ breach-of-contract claims, which are hereby DISMISSED; the Motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’ declaratory-judgment claims are improperly duplicative of their breach-of-contract claims; and the Motions are DENIED in all other respects. It isso ORDERED.

SIGNED this j day of April, 2025. DVWAL A ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge