Kota Me Patates LLC v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. Texas

Kota Me Patates LLC v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Trial Court Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 09, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

KOTA ME PATATES LLC, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-01573 § NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE § INSURANCE COMPANY, § § Defendant. § ORDER Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho’s Memorandum and Recommendation filed on December 21, 2023 (Doc. #19), Plaintiff Kota Me Patates, LLC’s (“KMP”) Objections (Doc. #20), Defendant Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s (“Nationwide”) Response (Doc. #21), and KMP’s Reply (Doc. #22). The Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions are reviewed de novo. FED. R. Clv. P. 72(b);

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1); United States y. Wilson,

864 F.2d 1219, 1221

(Sth Cir. 1989), Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and applicable legal authority, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation as its Order. For the first time in its Objections, KMP argues that the meaning of the term “NOT PROVIDED” as used on the property declarations page of the parties’ business insurance policy is ambiguous. Doc. #20; see also Doc. #7, Ex. 1 at 13. KMP failed to raise this argument in its Response to Nationwide’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #7). See Doc. #8. In fact, the word “ambiguous” is not used in KMP’s Response at all. See

id.

The Fifth Circuit has held that “a party who objects to the magistrate judge’s report waives legal arguments not made in the first

instance before the magistrate judge.” Jreeman vy. Cnty. of Bexar,

142 F.3d 848, 851

(Sth Cir. 1998). Accordingly, KMP’s objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation based on the ambiguity of “NOT PROVIDED” are overruled. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation as its Order. Nationwide’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #7) is GRANTED in its entirety, and KMP’s Motion to Compel Appraisal (Doc. #5) is DENIED. Concurrent with this Order, the Court will enter a separate final judgment pursuant to Rule 58(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is so ORDERED.

JAN 8 8 2024 Date The Honorable Alftéd H. Bennett United States Distriét Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown