Moran v. Federal National Mortgage Association

Justia Dockets & Filings Fourth Circuit Virginia Eastern District Moran v. Federal National Mortgage Association

Moran v. Federal National Mortgage Association

Plaintiff:	Daniel E. Moran
Defendant:	Federal National Mortgage Association
Case Number:	2:2012cv00212
Filed:	April 19, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Office:	Norfolk Office
County:	Norfolk City
Presiding Judge:	Douglas E. Miller
Presiding Judge:	Raymond A. Jackson
Nature of Suit:	Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1441
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
July 17, 2012	Filing 20 OPINION AND ORDER. The case is now before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss all three claims alleged by Moran. Considering the facts pled, and fair inferences from those facts, the Court finds that Moran was not contributorily negligen t as a matter of law and thus DENIES the motion to dismiss Count I (Negligence) and Count II (Negligence Per Se). Count III (Nuisance, however, rests on conclusory statements, and is insufficient to state a claim for public nuisance. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss the nuisance claim. While Moran has alleged insufficient facts to support a nuisance claim, the Court finds that Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the undersigned DENIES the motion to dismiss Counts I and II, and GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss Count III. Entered and filed 7/17/12. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller on 7/17/12). (ecav, )

Date Filed

Document Text

July 17, 2012

Filing 20 OPINION AND ORDER. The case is now before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss all three claims alleged by Moran. Considering the facts pled, and fair inferences from those facts, the Court finds that Moran was not contributorily negligen t as a matter of law and thus DENIES the motion to dismiss Count I (Negligence) and Count II (Negligence Per Se). Count III (Nuisance, however, rests on conclusory statements, and is insufficient to state a claim for public nuisance. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss the nuisance claim. While Moran has alleged insufficient facts to support a nuisance claim, the Court finds that Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the undersigned DENIES the motion to dismiss Counts I and II, and GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss Count III. Entered and filed 7/17/12. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller on 7/17/12). (ecav, )

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Moran v. Federal National Mortgage Association
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Federal National Mortgage Association
Represented By:	Kelvin LaVel Newsome
Represented By:	Joseph M. Rainsbury
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Daniel E. Moran
Represented By:	Joseph J. Perez
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?