Martinez v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Texas
DecidedJanuary 25, 2024
Docket5:23-cv-00090
StatusUnknown

This text of Martinez v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (Martinez v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Martinez v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, (S.D. Tex. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 25, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk LAREDO DIVISION

ALMA MARTINEZ et al. § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-90 § ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND § PROPERTY INSURANCE § COMPANY §

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) (Dkt. No. 18). On October 27, 2023, then United States Magistrate Judge John A. Kazen ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel, Perry J. Dominguez, II, to show cause why the Court should not impose sanctions on him pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (Dkt. No. 8 at 3). Mr. Dominguez had failed to address binding Fifth Circuit precedent1 the Court directed him towards and filed a motion for remand unwarranted under that precedent (see Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 6). On November 13, 2023, Mr. Dominguez filed a response to the show cause order (Dkt. No. 12). After reviewing Mr. Dominguez’s response, the Magistrate Judge recommends in his Report that the Court impose upon Mr. Dominguez a sanction of three (3) hours of certified continuing legal education (Dkt. No. 18 at 10).

1 Advanced Indicator & Mfg., Inc. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 50 F.4th 469, 474 (5th Cir. 2022) (holding that an insurance company’s election of responsibility for an insurance adjuster’s liability before removal means that the adjuster is improperly joined at the time of removal, because there is no possibility of recovery against the adjuster). No party filed an objection to the Report within the 14-day objection period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (providing for the 14-day objection period). The Court thus reviews the Report for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Hack v. Wright, 396 F.Supp.3d 720, 730 (S.D. Tex. 2019). Having reviewed the Report and finding no clear error, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report (Dkt. No. 18) INWHOLE. Accordingly, the Court imposes the following sanction pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 11(c): Perry J. Dominguez, II shall complete three (8) hours of Texas Bar Association certified continuing legal education on a subject or subjects related to legal research. Mr. Dominguez shall have six (6) months, or until Thursday, July 25, 2024, to complete these hours and shall present the Court with proof of completion on or before that same date. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED January 25, 2024. ; : ape Garcia Marmolejo United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Adv Indicator v. Acadia Ins
50 F.4th 469 (Fifth Circuit, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Martinez v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-allstate-vehicle-and-property-insurance-company-txsd-2024.