IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

MJM REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE and 

ALACRITY SOLUTIONS GROUP LLC,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-416-MACCLS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON 

DEFENDANT ALACRITY’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DIMISS (Doc. #12)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to 

United States Magistrate Judges, the district court referred this proceeding to the undersigned 

magistrate judge to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter findings of fact and recommend 

disposition on case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72. Pending before the court is Defendant Alacrity’s 

Unopposed Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. #12.)

Plaintiff filed suit in state court against Defendants on September 13, 2023. (Doc. #2.) On 

November 16, 2023, Defendant Great Lakes filed its original answer in which is elected to accept 

whatever liability Defendant Alacrity might have under Texas Insurance Code §542.006(a), 

warranting automatic dismissal of Alacrity under Texas state law. (Doc. #3.) At the same time, 

Defendant Great Lakes removed this case to federal court on diversity grounds, meaning the 

substance of Texas Insurance Code §542.006(a) applies, but not the procedure which calls for 

automatic dismissal. See, e.g., Yarco Trading Co., Inc. v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 397 F. Supp. 

3d 939, 949 (S.D. Tex. 2019) (applying Texas Insurance Code §542A.006 substantively in a 

Case 1:23-cv-00416-MAC-CLS Document 19 Filed 03/19/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

110
2

federal diversity suit). At the case management conference on February 12, 2024, Defendants 

were advised to file an appropriate motion requesting dismissal of Defendant Alacrity. Defendant 

Alacrity Solutions Group filed the instant unopposed motion on February 16, 2024. (Doc. #12.)

After review of the record, Defendant Great Lakes has properly elected to accept any 

liability Defendant Alacrity may have related to the claims brought by Plaintiff. TEX. INS. CODE 

Ann. § 542A.006 (West). The instant motion (doc. #12) should, therefore, be GRANTED, and

Defendant Alacrity should be DISMISSED from this action. Any claims that Plaintiff has against 

Defendant Alacrity should be considered claims against Defendant Great Lakes.

Objections

Due to the unopposed nature of this motion, the undersigned notes that the parties may file 

appropriate notice that they waive the objection period. Cunningham v. Matrix Fin. Servs., LLC, 

No. 4:19-CV-896-ALM-CAN, 2020 WL 2858810, at *3 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2020), R&R adopted, 

No. 4:19-CV-896, 2020 WL 2850153 (E.D. Tex. June 1, 2020). In the absence of waiver, the 

following rules govern objections.

Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judge’s report, any party must 

serve and file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate 

judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding 

or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the 

place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific. Without leave of court, objections are limited to eight (8) pages. 

E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72(c).

Case 1:23-cv-00416-MAC-CLS Document 19 Filed 03/19/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

111
3

Failure to file specific, written objections will bar the party from appealing the unobjectedto factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted by the district 

court, except upon grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that 

such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 

79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds; 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 19th day of March, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00416-MAC-CLS Document 19 Filed 03/19/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

112