Priority Auto Group, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:2012cv00492 - Document 57 (E.D. Va. 2013)

Court Description: FINAL ORDER denying plaintiff's 52 Motion to Certify Question to Supreme Court of Virginia; adopting and approving in full the findings and recommendations set forth in 40 Report and Recommendations; granting defendant's 13 Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings; dismissing Counts I through III of the Complaint with prejudice. Pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation, the Court dismisses with prejudice Count IV. Signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith and filed on 5/15/13.(mwin, )

Download PDF

Priority Auto Group, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company Doc. 57 FILE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division MAY 1 5 2013 PRIORITY AUTO GROUP, INC., CLERK, OS DISTRICT COURT NORFOLK. VA Plaintiff, v. ACTION NO. 2:12cv492 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant. FINAL ORDER On July 25, 2012, ("Priority"), the Plaintiff, commenced an Priority Auto Group, action against Ford Motor Company ("Ford") in the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk. alleged various claims arising from Inc. Ford's Priority exercise of its contractual "right of first refusal to purchase," which thwarted Priority's attempt to purchase Kimnach Ford, Inc. Ford dealership in Norfolk, Virginia. removed the case to federal court, ("Kimnach") , a On August 30, 2012, Ford and filed its Answer to the Complaint. The court will now address two motions pending before the court in this matter: 1) the on Pleadings, filed Ford's Motion for Partial Judgment on October 16, 2012 (ECF No. 13) -,1 and Ford styled this Motion as a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings because it sought dismissal only of Counts I, II, and III of the four claims contained in Priority's Complaint. Since Dockets.Justia.com 2) Priority's Motion to Certify Question to the Supreme Court of Virginia, filed on April 17, 2013 (ECF No. 52). For clarity and logic, the motions will be addressed in reverse order of filing. I. Motion to Certify Question to the Virginia Supreme Court On April 17, 2013, Priority filed a Motion to Certify Question to the Supreme Court of Virginia ("Motion to Certify") and accompanying Memorandum in Support. Therein, Priority asks the court to certify to the Supreme Court of Virginia three questions related to the standing of a prospective buyer of a dealership dealers, claims under a Virginia statute regulating motor vehicle and to the ability of a prospective buyer to bring of tortious interference against a franchisor. Ford filed its Response to the Motion to Certify on April 29, 2013, to which Priority replied on May 6, 2013. Under Rule 5:40 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, a United States district court may certify a question of Virginia law, if such question is dispositive and there is no this Motion was filed, the parties have jointly stipulated to the IV, dismissal Procedure of Count 41(a)(1). Some pursuant courts to have Federal held that Rule of Civil because Rule 41(a)(1) refers to the voluntary dismissal of an action, not of a single count, voluntary dismissal of a single claim of a multi-claim action is properly labeled an amendment under Rule 15. See, e.g., Gronholz v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 836 F.2d 515, 518 (Fed. Workers, Cir. 610 1987); F.2d 384, Management 394-95 Investors (6th Cir. v. 1979). United Mine Nonetheless, because the court now dismisses Counts I through III, leaving Count IV as the sole remaining count, the court accepts the parties' joint stipulation to dismissal of Count IV, which results in dismissal of the entire action. controlling Supreme Court of Virginia or Court of Appeals of Virginia precedent on point. Certification, however, is never obligatory, to and the decision discretion of the district court. U.S. 386, 390-91 (1974); West Am. certify remains within the Lehman Bros, v. Schein, 416 Ins. Co. v. Bank of Isle of Wight, 673 F. Supp. 760, 764 (E.D. Va. 1987). The court declines to exercise its discretion to certify Priority's proposed questions to the Supreme Court of Virginia. The questions Priority now seeks to certify were the central issues Judge Leonard considered in his thorough, Report. well-reasoned Although these are issues of first impression, Leonard appropriately relied on persuasive Judge authority in other jurisdictions and well-settled principles of statutory review in making his findings and recommendations, which the court now adopts.2 Moreover, the court cannot ignore the timing of this Motion to Certify, which filed its Motion was for shortly after Judge Priority. The filed Partial more than Judgment six months on the after Ford Pleadings, Leonard issued a recommendation adverse parties and the court have already and to expended considerable effort resolving the very issues Priority seeks now to certify; save certifying the questions judicial time, 2 See infra Part II. energy, at this stage would not or resources. To the contrary, certification would only unduly delay proceedings in this court. Accordingly, Priority's Motion to Certify is DENIED. II. Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings The Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings ("Motion") was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Civil Procedure evidentiary findings hearings, of fact, disposition of January 10, 2013. Report 72(b), and if § 636(b)(1)(B) to conduct necessary, if applicable, the Motion. A pursuant to and Federal Rule of hearings, and to including submit proposed and recommendations for the hearing was conducted on Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard issued a Recommendation on April 1, 2013 ("Report"), and recommended that the Motion be granted and Counts I through III of the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. found that Priority, as a prospective Judge Leonard buyer of a Ford Dealership, has no standing under Virginia Code § 46.2-1569(3a) to sue Ford on the ground that Ford exercised its right of first refusal. allegedly improperly Judge Leonard further found that Ford's exercise of its right of first refusal does not constitute improper action under Virginia's tort of intentional interference with a contract or business expectancy. Priority filed objections to the Report on April 17, 2013, which Ford responded on April 30, 2013. for review. 4 to The matter is now ripe The court, having examined the objections and made de novo findings with respect thereto, does hereby adopt and approve in full the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate April 1, 2013. Accordingly, Partial Judgment on the Judge Leonard, Pleadings, and on Ford's Motion the court GRANTS filed for DISMISSES Counts I through III of the Complaint. Ill. For the reasons stated Conclusion above, Ford's Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. Priority's Complaint Additionally, are hereby Motion for Partial Counts I through III of DISMISSED pursuant to the parties' with prejudice. joint stipulation, court DISMISSES with prejudice Count IV.3 the The court DIRECTS the Clerk to forward a copy of this Final Order to counsel for all parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. JsL Rebecca Beach Smith TT . . Chief United States District Judge REBECCA BEACH SMITH CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE May |£ , 2013 3 See supra note 1.

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.