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.

Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina v. Sela

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

March 3, 2017

SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff,
v.
AMIT SELA, NICOLE SELA, and NICOLE R. SELA REVOCABLE TRUST, Defendants.

          Kristi K. Brownson and Olivia M. Cooper, BROWNSON & LINNIHAN, PLLP, for plaintiff.

          Christopher H. Yetka, Christopher L. Lynch, and Patricia E. Volpe, BARNES & THORNBURG LLP, for defendants.

          ORDER

          Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge

         This matter is before the Court on two motions filed by defendants Amit Sela, Nicole Sela, and Nicole R. Sela Revocable Trust: (1) a motion to dismiss the amended complaint of plaintiff Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina, and (2) a motion for sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. The Court conducted a hearing on the motions on March 3, 2017. Based on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons explained on the record at the March 3 hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

         1. Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 13] is GRANTED.

         2. Count I of the amended complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because it fails to plausibly plead that plaintiff is entitled to damages for breach of contract.

         3. Count II of the amended complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because it fails to plausibly plead that plaintiff is entitled to damages for fraud.

         4. Count III of the amended complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to defendants Nicole Sela and Nicole R. Sela Revocable Trust because “the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, [do not] show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Md. Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941).

         5. Count III of the amended complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to defendant Amit Sela because it fails to “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b).

         6. Plaintiff is GIVEN LEAVE to file a second amended complaint by April 3, 2017. Plaintiff may re-plead the claim for a declaratory judgment, but not the claims for breach of contract and fraud.

         7. If plaintiff files a second amended complaint, plaintiff must clearly and specifically identify each instance in which it alleges that Amit Sela, willfully and with intent to defraud, concealed or misrepresented a material fact or circumstance. Plaintiff must identify exactly what Amit Sela concealed or misrepresented, and plaintiff must identify the exact written or oral communication in which Amit Sela committed the concealment or misrepresentation. Each instance of alleged concealment or misrepresentation must appear in a separately numbered paragraph.[1]

         8. Defendants' motion for sanctions [ECF No. 22] is DENIED.

---------


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.