CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. W M JR TRUCKING COMPANY et al, No. 1:2008cv00076 - Document 24 (D. Me. 2008)

Court Description: ORDER adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 20 Report and Recommendations. for 20 Report and Recommended Decision, 11 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 1,, Motion to Stay, filed by HUBER ENGINEERED WOODS LLC, 10 Motion to Dismiss filed by HUBER ENGINEERED WOODS LLC ; denying 10 Motion to Dismiss; granting 11 Motion to abstain from hearing ; granting 11 Motion to Stay By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (err)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. W.M. JR. TRUCKING COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV-08-76-B-W ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION ON DEFENDANT HUBER ENGINEERING WOODS, LLC S MOTION TO ABSTAIN AND/OR DISMISS On May 16, 2008, Defendant Huber Engineered Woods, LLC ( Huber ) filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to abstain from hearing this action pending resolution of a parallel North Carolina state court proceeding (Docket # 10). Plaintiff Canal Insurance Company ( Canal ) filed its response to the motion on June 5, 2008 (Docket # 14), and Huber filed its reply on June 16, 2008 (Docket # 16). The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on July 1, 2008 her Recommended Decision (Docket # 20). Canal filed its objections to the Recommended Decision on July 11, 2008 (Docket # 21) and Huber filed its response to those objections on July 28, 2008 (Docket # 22). As an exhibit to its response, Huber attached a copy of an Order dated July 9, 2008 from the Superior Court in North Carolina in which the North Carolina Court denied Canal s motion to dismiss and motion to stay, and held in abeyance Huber s motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket # 22 Ex. A). The Court interprets the state court Order to suggest that the state action in North Carolina is proceeding apace. The Court has reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge s Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and has made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge s Recommended Decision. The Court concurs with the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge to abstain for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision. It is therefore ORDERED that Huber s motion to dismiss/abstain (Docket # 10) be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court DENIES Huber Engineered Wood, LLC s motion to dismiss and GRANTS its motion to abstain to the extent that this action is stayed pending final judgment in the North Carolina state action. In the event circumstances substantially change, any party to this action may move to lift the stay for good cause. SO ORDERED. /s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr. JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 1st day of October, 2008 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.