Defendant's Attorney: Not Available

Description: Scranton, Pennsylvania insurance law lawyer represented the Plaintiffs who sued the Defendants on a breach of insurance contract theory.

his case involves interpretation of an insurance policy providing coverage for Defendant Raul Jauregui (“Jauregui”) regarding another matter pending before the court. On February 13, 2023, plaintiffs initiated this action in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas seeking a declaratory judgment against Defendant Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company (“MLM”). Plaintiffs also named Jauregui as a defendant.

The underlying action, McCarthy v. Jauregui, 3:21cv1759, involves the three plaintiffs' claims for battery, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress and wrongful use of civil proceedings against Jauregui and his client, Daniel Boye. The claims in that matter arise out of an alleged sexual assault at King's College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, subsequent Title IX proceedings at that institution, and a state court lawsuit filed by Jauregui against Plaintiff Debra McCarthy for allegedly defaming his client in her statements to the college's Title IX coordinator.

This action focuses on insurance coverage potentially available under a lawyers' professional liability policy issued by MLM (“the policy”). Under the policy, Jauregui and Jauregui Law Firm are listed as insureds.

The issue between the parties involves whether Jauregui's conduct triggers coverage of $200,000 for one claim or the maximum coverage of $600,000 for multiple claims. Plaintiffs assert in this action that each claim in the underlying lawsuit triggers the aggregate limit based on separate acts by Jauregui. MLM takes the position that the underlying action is a single claim, limiting coverage to $200,000 in total.

MLM filed a notice of removal on March 14, 2023 averring that the court has jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1). On March 17, 2023, plaintiffs filed the instant motion to remand challenging the removal under the resident-defendant rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). (Doc. 5). Since that time, both defendants filed motions to dismiss (Docs. 8, 19) and Jauregui filed two motions for sanctions. (Docs. 24, 42).

This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Carlson and he issued an R&R on June 5, 2023 recommending that the motion to remand be granted. (Doc. 28). The magistrate judge also addressed the motions to dismiss and the first motion for sanctions and recommended that the court refrain from addressing those other pending motions until after disposition of the motion for remand. Defendants timely filed objections to the R&R. Thereafter, on July 19, 2023, Magistrate Judge Carlson issued a second R&R regarding defendant's motions to dismiss, again recommending that the court refrain from acting on those other pending motions. Although no party filed objections to the second R&R, the original objections address that same recommendation and bring the case to its present posture.

Outcome: For the reasons set forth above, defendants' objections will be overruled and the R&Rs from Magistrate Judge Carlson (Docs. 28, 38) will be adopted. Plaintiffs' motion for remand will be granted and this case will be remanded back to the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas. Defendants' motions to dismiss and Jauregui's motions for sanctions will be dismissed as moot and the Clerk of Court will be directed to close this case.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: