United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ANTHONY SHELBY, SHELBY & SHELBY PROPERTIES, LLC, and SHELBY, ARNOLD & SHELBY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Plaintiffs,
NORTHFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, dated November 29, 2017 (the
“Report”). (ECF No. 23.) The Report recommends
that the Court grant Defendant Northfield Insurance
Company's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Bad Faith
Claim (“Motion to Dismiss”) (ECF No. 14).
Plaintiffs Anthony Shelby, Shelby & Shelby Properties,
LLC, and Shelby, Arnold, and Shelby Property Management, LLC
(“Plaintiffs”) have not objected to the Report.
following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
April 28, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the
Circuit Court of Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial
District at Memphis. (ECF No. 1-2.) The Complaint alleges
that, on or about June 20, 2016, Plaintiffs and Defendant
entered into an insurance policy agreement (the
“Policy”), under which Defendant “would
provide liability insurance coverage for Plaintiffs[']
commercial rental properties.” (Id. at 8.)
about September 25, 2016, one of Plaintiffs' rental
properties, located at 940 Faxton Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee
(the “Faxon Property”) was significantly damaged
by a fire. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that they
“made a timely claim for property damage, and loss of
rental income and other related damages as a result of the
September 25, 2016 fire.” (Id.) They allege
that Defendant “[has] not paid the claim despite
conducting a thorough investigation, in violation of the
sixty (60) day requirement set forth in T.C.A. §
56-7-105.” (Id.) Plaintiffs also allege that
Defendant denied their claim because Plaintiffs failed to
have operable smoke detectors at the Faxton Property,
although smoke detectors had been installed “well
before” the September 25, 2016 fire. (Id. at
9-10.) Plaintiffs allege three causes of action: breach of
contract, bad faith refusal to pay pursuant to Tennessee Code
Annotated § 56-7-105, and violation of the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) pursuant to
Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 47-18-101, et seq..
(Id. at 11-14.)
16, 2017, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal to this Court.
(ECF No. 1.) Removal was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and
28 U.S.C. § 1446. (Id. at 1.)
28, 2017, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 14;
see also ECF No. 14-1.) Defendant argues that
“Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim for
damages under T.C.A. § 56-7-105.” (ECF No. 14-1 at
47.) Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have not pled
sufficient facts to show that they made a formal demand for
payment of their claim to Defendant, and have not pled
sufficient facts to show that they waited the required sixty
days after submitting a formal demand before filing their
Complaint. (Id. at 47-51.)
responded to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on August 10,
2017. (ECF No. 18.) Defendant replied on August 24, 2017.
(ECF No. 19.)
November 29, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered the Report.
(ECF No. 23.) The Report recommends that Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss be granted. (Id. at 98-99.) The
Report recommends that Plaintiffs' claims for breach of
contract and violations of the TCPA remain before the Court
because Defendant did not seek dismissal of those claims.
(Id. at 99.)
enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the
federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of district-
court duties to magistrate judges. See United States v.
Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing
Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858,
869-70 (1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67
Fed.Appx. 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). A district court has the
authority to “designate a magistrate judge to conduct
hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a
judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court,
of any motion.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
district court has appellate jurisdiction over any decisions
the magistrate judge issues pursuant to a referral. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. “A district judge must
determine de novo any part of a Magistrate
Judge's disposition that has been properly objected
to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The district court is not required to review -- under a
de novo or any other standard -- “any issue
that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should
adopt the findings and rulings of the Magistrate Judge to
which no specific objection is filed. Id.;
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th
have not objected to the Report, and the deadline to do so
under Local Rule 72.1 has passed. See also 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). Adoption of the Report's ...