Great American Insurance Company v. Chen

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:25-cv-02850
Document 32 Filed 01/14/26 in TXSD
Page 1 of 2 United States District Court Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
ENTERED January 15, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-02850
ORDER
Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan's Memorandum and Recommendation filed on September 11, 2025 (Doc. #16), Defendant Victor Chen's Objections (Doc. #18), and Plaintiff Great American Insurance Company's Response (Doc. #19). The Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions are reviewed de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). Having reviewed the parties' arguments and applicable legal authority, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation as its Order.
In this case, Plaintiff brings claims against pro se Defendant for conversion, liability under the Texas Theft Liability Act, unjust enrichment, money had and received, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. Doc. #1. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims on July 7, 2025. Doc. #8. The Magistrate Judge recommends this Court deny Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Doc. #16.
Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation on essentially the same grounds argued in his Motion to Dismiss. Doc. #18. For instance, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's Complaint does not meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO
vos las cas las cas los cas las cas los
VICTOR CHEN,
Defendant.

Case 4:25-cv-02850
Document 32 Filed 01/14/26 in TXSD
Page 2 of 2
heightened pleading standard for fraud. Id. at 1. Upon review of the Memorandum and Recommendation, however, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions. Further, Plaintiff's objections are impermissibly vague. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (requiring "specific written objections to the [Magistrate Judge's] proposed findings and recommendations"); Crowley v. Collier, No. 2:23-cv-201, 2024 WL 6815778, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2024) ("Objections to an M&R must point out with particularity the error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis."). As such, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation.
In conclusion, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. #16) as its Order. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #8) is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
JAN 1 4 2026
Date
The Honorable Alfred H. Bennett United States District Judge
2