From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jun 4, 2013
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01223-REB-MEH (D. Colo. Jun. 4, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01223-REB-MEH

06-04-2013

AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, as Subrogee of Bison Ridge, LLC, and BISON RIDGE, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Plaintiffs, v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, and AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendants.


Judge Robert E. Blackburn


ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Blackburn, J.

The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#69], filed April 5, 2013; and (2) Plaintiffs' Objections Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 72(a)[ to Doc. #69, Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave To File Second Amended Complaint To Add Additional Claim for Relief (Doc. #60) [#91], filed April 19, 2013. I overrule the objections, adopt the recommendation, and deny the apposite motion for leave to amend the complaint.

"[#69]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.

Although plaintiffs purport to bring this motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), it does not pertain to a non-dispositive matter, and therefore must be resolved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
--------

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which objections have been filed. I have considered carefully the recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw. The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Plaintiffs suggest that they could not assert their additional claim until the resolution of the underlying state court lawsuits on which this declaratory judgment action is based. I am unpersuaded. All four of those matters were settled well in advance of the deadline to amend pleadings, and plaintiffs proffer nothing to explain - much less excuse - their subsequent delay in moving to amend. Likewise, the unsettled state of the law surrounding plaintiffs' proposed new claim does not excuse their failure to assert a colorable claim.

Therefore, I find and conclude that the arguments advanced, authorities cited, and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation proposed by the magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#69], filed April 5, 2013, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;

2. That the objections stated in Plaintiffs' Objections Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 72(a) to Doc. #69, Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave To File Second Amended Complaint To Add Additional Claim for Relief (Doc. #60) [#91], filed April 19, 2013, are OVERRULED; and

3. That plaintiffs' Motion for Leave To File Second Amended Complaint To Add Additional Claim for Relief [#60], filed March 25, 2013, is DENIED.

Dated June 4, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

____________________

Robert E. Blackburn

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jun 4, 2013
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01223-REB-MEH (D. Colo. Jun. 4, 2013)
Case details for

Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, as…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jun 4, 2013

Citations

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01223-REB-MEH (D. Colo. Jun. 4, 2013)