Opinion
Civil Action 2:23-cv-2056
04-29-2024
SMAIL COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL AUTO AND HOME SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.
Hon. Patricia L. Dodge
ORDER OF COURT
WILLIAM S. STICKMAN IV, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Smail Company, Inc. (“Plaintiff') commenced this action in October 2023 in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County by filing a complaint against Defendant Liberty Mutual Auto and Home Services, LLC (“Defendant”) bringing claims of unfair competition (Count One), unjust enrichment (Count Two), breach of contract (Count Three) and bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S. § 8371 (Count Four). Defendant removed this case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction (ECF No. 1), and then filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 7). After the conclusion of briefing, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge issued a Report and Recommendation that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 14). Objections were filed by Defendant (ECF No. 15), and then Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of law in Opposition to Defendant's Objections to the Magistrate Recommendation (ECF No. 16).
Objections to a magistrate judge's disposition of a dispositive matter are subject to de novo review before the district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The reviewing district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objections are made. Id. Following de novo review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
Upon review of Magistrate Judge Dodge's Report and Recommendation, the objections, response to the objections, and the Court's de novo review of the record in this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's objections (ECF No. 15) to Magistrate Judge Dodge's Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. The Court has exercised its de novo review and concurs with Magistrate Judge Dodge's thorough analysis and her legal conclusions. It has independently reached the same legal conclusions for the same reasons expressed in the comprehensive Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court hereby APOPTS Magistrate Judge Dodge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) as its Opinion.
AND NOW, this 29 day of April 2024, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Liberty Mutual Auto and Home Services, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as follows:
1. Count One is dismissed with prejudice.
2. Counts Three and Four are dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend. Amended Complaint due by May 17, 2024.
The Court concurs with Magistrate Judge Dodge that amendment of this claim would be futile. See In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir.1997) (a court may decide to deny leave to amend for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility); see also 3 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 15.15 (3d ed. 2024) (“An amendment is futile if it merely restates the same facts as the original complaint in different terms, reasserts a claim on which the court previously ruled, fails to state a legal theory, or could not withstand a motion to dismiss.”).
The motion is DENIED as to Count Two.