Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Knuth v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co.

United States District Court, D. Arizona

March 31, 2017

Randall Knuth, Plaintiff,
v.
Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Raner C. Collins Chief United States District Judge

         On February 6, 2017 the Honorable D. Thomas Ferraro, United States Magistrate Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in this action. Doc. 561-1. The R&R recommends this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Disability (Doc. 421) and deny Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 461). Id. at 17.

         The parties did not object to the recommendation that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Disability (Doc. 421). Defendants did file timely objections to the recommendation that this Court deny their Motion for Partial Summary Judgement (Doc. 461). Doc. 567. Plaintiff filed timely responses to Defendants' objections. Doc. 568.

         The Court has considered all of the foregoing circumstances and pleadings, as well as the parties' underlying briefs. As to the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 421), the Court will adopt Judge Ferraro's findings of fact and conclusions of law and will deny the motion. As to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 461), the Court will adopt Judge Ferraro's findings of fact and conclusions of law and will deny the motion

         STANDARD OF REVIEW AND SUMMARY JUDGEMENT STANDARD

         The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court 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); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge's order unless his factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge's decision…is entitled to great deference by the district court.” U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001).

         Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also, Arn, 474 U.S. at 149 (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does not ... require any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”).

         A motion for summary judgment may be granted only where there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, (1986). When assessing the record to make this determination, the “evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)). Courts recognize that “[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge....” Id. at 255.

         ANALYSIS

         A. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Disability

         Here, the parties have not objected to the portions of the R&R addressing Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding his Disability Status. As such the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the same. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, this Court has reviewed the record de novo in conjunction with the R&R's recommended disposition of the motion. This Court considers the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned on this issue. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the R&R's findings of fact and conclusions of law (Doc. 561-1, in part) and will DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 421).

         B. Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiff's Claims of Bad Faith and Punitive Damages

         Defendants' categorize their objections to the R&R as follows:

Defendants respectfully submit the R&R misapplied the … law to the undisputed facts in reaching the conclusion that the bad faith and punitive damage claims should go to the jury. The facts of the claim handling are undisputed and documented in Defendants' claim file. Plaintiff argued inferences of unreasonable conduct based on these undisputed facts. The R&R ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.