Juan R. Cervantes v. Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1263
JUAN R. CERVANTES,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1324
JUAN R. CERVANTES,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Joe L. Webster,
Magistrate Judge. (1:15-cv-00081-JLW)
Submitted: November 29, 2016 Decided: December 6, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. David Stradley, WHITE & STRADLEY, PLLC, Raleigh, North
Carolina; Brian M. Ricci, RICCI LAW FIRM, PA, Greenville, North
Carolina, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Jessica C. Tyndall,
MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Juan R. Cervantes appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and Bridgefield Casualty
Insurance Company (“Bridgefield”) cross-appeals from the
district court’s orders denying Bridgefield’s motions to stay
discovery and for a protective order, and granting, in part,
Cervantes’ motions to compel and for sanctions. With respect to
Cervantes’ appeal, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. We agree with the district court that
“persuasive data” does not exist convincing us that the North
Carolina Supreme Court would disagree with the decisions of the
North Carolina Court of Appeals relied on by the district court.
See Assicurazioni Generali, S.p.A. v. Neil, 160 F.3d 997,
1002-03 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal
of Cervantes’ complaint substantially for the reasons stated by
the district court. Cervantes v. Bridgefield Cas. Ins. Co., No.
1:15-cv-00081-JLW (M.D.N.C. Feb. 11, 2016). Because we affirm
the district court’s dismissal of Cervantes’ complaint, we
dismiss Bridgefield’s cross-appeal as moot. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --