United States District Court, District of Columbia
MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,
v.
METCOR LTD., Defendant, Counterclaim Plaintiff, and Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
DENCHO MARINE, INC., Third-Party Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Markel
American Insurance Company (“Markel”) filed the
instant action against Metcor, Ltd. (“Metcor”)
seeking declaratory relief with respect to an insurance
policy that Markel issued to Metcor covering an 80-foot
sailboat. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Specifically, Markel's
complaint requested a declaration “that it is not
required to provide insurance coverage for damage to the
canting keel assembly of Metcor's 2005 80-foot Dencho
Andrews sloop DONNYBROOK[, ]” because either a
manufacturer's defect or a whale collision caused the
damages, neither of which is covered under the policy.
(Id. at 1.)[1] On December 10, 2014, Metcor filed its
answer, as well as a breach of contract counterclaim based on
Markel's refusal to provide coverage for the damaged
DONNYBROOK. (See Ans. & Countercl. of Metcor, ECF No.
10.) Two days later, on December 12, 2014, Metcor filed a
third-party complaint against Dencho Marine, Inc.
(“Dencho”), alleging that Dencho negligently
manufactured the DONNYBROOK. (See Metcor's Third-Party
Compl. Against Third-Party Def. Dencho, ECF No. 12.) Markel
and Metcor have since settled the disputes between them;
therefore, all that remains of this matter is Metcor's
third-party complaint against Dencho. (See Stip. of Dismissal
with Prejudice of All Claims Between Markel & Metcor, ECF
No. 25.)
Metcor
served its third-party complaint on Dencho on December 22,
2014 (see Proof of Service, ECF No. 16), and on March 26,
2015, after Dencho failed to respond to the third-party
complaint, the Clerk of the Court entered a default against
Dencho (see Clerk's Entry of Default, ECF No. 19). Metcor
filed a motion for default judgment on December 23, 2015 (see
Metcor's Mot. for Entry of Default J. against Third-Party
Def. Dencho, ECF No. 26), which was automatically stayed
after Dencho filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (see Notice of
Bankr. Ct.'s Granting of Metcor's Mot. for Relief
from Automatic Stay, ECF No. 27, at 1). The presiding
Bankruptcy Judge subsequently granted relief from the
automatic stay and “authorized [Dencho] to participate
in the litigation proceedings of the default judgment
requested by [Metcor].” (Third-Party Def.'s
Notification to the Court, ECF No. 28, at 1; see also
Id. at 3 (“The Court granted Metcor's
motion for relief from the automatic stay which will enable
the parties to litigate the merits of the third party lawsuit
in district court.”).) On August 30, 2018, this Court
referred Metcor's motion for a default judgment against
Dencho to a Magistrate Judge, and the matter was randomly
assigned to Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey. (See Minute
Order of Aug. 30, 2018; Minute Entry of Aug. 30, 2018.)
On
November 8, 2018, Magistrate Judge Harvey ordered Metcor to
show cause why its motion for a default judgment should not
be denied for lack of personal jurisdiction. (See Order to
Show Cause, ECF No. 34, at 2-3.) Noting that “[i]n
default judgment proceedings, the plaintiff bears the burden
of making a prima facie showing of the Court's personal
jurisdiction over the defendant” (id. at 2 (citation
omitted)), Magistrate Judge Harvey found that Metcor had not
satisfied that burden because “Dencho is a California
corporation with its principal place of business in Long
Beach, CA[, and] Metcor has not alleged any facts to suggest
that Dencho is subject to the Court's personal
jurisdiction under D.C.'s long-arm statute, or that
Dencho has sufficient minimum contacts with the District of
Columbia so as to satisfy due process.” (Id.
at 3.) Metcor did not respond to Magistrate Judge
Harvey's show cause order by the established deadline
(November 21, 2018).
Before
this Court at present is the Report and Recommendation that
Magistrate Judge Harvey filed on December 10, 2018, in regard
to Metcor's motion for default judgment. (See R. &
R., ECF No. 35.)[2] The Report and Recommendation reflects
Magistrate Judge Harvey's considered opinion that
Metcor's motion for default judgment should be denied for
lack of personal jurisdiction, given that “Metcor's
submissions to the Court to date do not satisfy its burden of
establishing this Court's personal jurisdiction over
Dencho.” (Id. at 1.) The R&R also informs
the parties that either party may file written objections,
and advises that the “failure to file timely objections
to the findings and recommendations set forth in this report
may waive [the party's] right of appeal from an order of
the District Court that adopts such findings and
recommendations.” (Id. at 2 (citing Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985)).) Under this Court's local
rules, any party who objects to a report and recommendation
of a Magistrate Judge must file a written objection with the
Clerk of the Court within 14 days of the party's receipt
of the report, and any such written objection must specify
the portions of the findings and recommendations to which
each objection is made and the basis for each such objection.
See LCvR 73.2(b). To date, no such objections have been
filed.
Magistrate
Judge Harvey has thoroughly considered the issues related to
personal jurisdiction that are implicated in this action, and
neither party has filed any objection. Therefore, this Court
will ADOPT the attached Report and Recommendation's
findings and conclusions and, as set forth in the
accompanying Order, Metcor's motion for default judgment
will be DENIED. In addition, Metcor's third-party
complaint against Dencho will be DISMISSED without prejudice,
and the Clerk will be instructed to close this matter.
REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
G.
MICHAEL HARVEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This
matter was referred to the undersigned for a Report and
Recommendation on the motion of third-party Plaintiff,
Metcor, Ltd. (“Metcor”) for default judgment
against third-party Defendant, Dencho Marine, Inc.
(“Dencho”). On November 8, 2018, the undersigned
ordered Metcor to show cause why its motion for default
judgment should not be denied for lack of personal
jurisdiction. ECF No. 34. As explained in that order, the
undersigned finds that Metcor's submissions to the Court
to date do not satisfy its burden of establishing the
Court's personal jurisdiction over Dencho. ECF No. 34 at
3. Metcor was given until November 21, 2018 to file its
response. To date, it has filed nothing. Accordingly, for the
reasons stated in the November 8, 2018 show cause order, the
undersigned finds that Metcor has failed to establish this
Court's jurisdiction over Den-cho. The undersigned
therefore RECOMMENDS that the Court
DENY Metcor's Motion for Default
Judgment.
* * * *
*
The
parties are hereby advised that under the provisions of Local
Rule 72.3(b) of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, any party who objects to the Report and
Recommendation must file a written objection thereto with the
Clerk of this Court within 14 days of the party's receipt
of this Report and Recommendation. The written objections
must specifically identify the portion of the report and/or
recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis for
such objections. The parties are further advised that failure
to file timely objections to the findings and recommendations
set forth in this report may waive their right of appeal from
an order of the District Court that adopts such findings and
recommendations. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985).
---------
Notes:
[1] Page No. herein refer to those that
the Court's electronic case-filing system automatically
...