State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Cook et al (MAG+)

Filing 30

ORDER directing that, on or before January 4, 2011, the parties are to file a joint report detailing (1) all material facts in this case and (2), as to each and every material fact, whether it is or is not genuinely in dispute, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/27/11. (scn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

STATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOSH O’NEAL COOK, an
)
Individual, and JANET
)
HALLFORD, as Administratrix )
of the Estate of James
)
David Stephens, Jr.,
)
Deceased,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:11cv384-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
During

an

on-the-record

conference

call

held

on

December 22, 2011, the court indicated that it would deny
the pending motion to stay filed by defendant Janet
Hallford, although a formal order to this effect would
not be entered until after the first of next year.

The

court also noted that no party had filed a dispositive
motion although the deadline for such had passed and the
pretrial conference was set for January 5, 2012.

After further reflection, the court is now of the
opinion that summary judgment in favor of one of the
parties may be appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(f)(3),

which

provides

Independent of the Motion.

as

follows:

“Judgment

After giving notice and a

reasonable time to respond, the court may ... consider
summary judgment on its own after identifying for the
parties the material facts that may not be genuinely in
dispute.”.
The parties should, therefore, take special note that
the court is considering entering summary judgment in
lieu of a trial because there may be no material facts
genuinely

in

dispute.

Under

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 56(a), the court shall grant summary judgment
if the evidentiary record

shows that there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and a party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.

2

Parties

representing

themselves

without

counsel

should be particularly aware of the requirements of the
rule.
“A party asserting that a fact cannot be
or is genuinely disputed must support
the
assertion
by
(A)
citing
to
particular parts of materials in the
record,
including
depositions,
documents,
electronically
stored
information, affidavits or declarations,
stipulations (including those made for
purposes
of
the
motion
only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or
other materials; or (B) showing that the
materials cited establish the absence of
presence of a genuine dispute, or that
an
adverse
party
cannot
produce
admissible evidence to support the
fact.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
Because the parties have not filed any evidence, the
court is unable at this time to identify for the parties,
as required by Rule 56(f)(3), which “material facts ...
may

not

56(f)(3).

be

genuinely

in

dispute.”

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

As such, the court will first seek help and

direction from the parties in identifying which material
facts they believe are not in dispute and which they
3

believe are.

Once these undisputed material facts are

identified by the parties, the court will then ask the
parties to brief whether (based on the material facts,
identified by the court, for which there may not be any
genuine dispute) it is appropriate for summary judgment
to be entered in favor of a party pursuant to Rule
56(f)(3).
***
Accordingly,

it

is

ORDERED

that,

on

or

before

January 4, 2011, the parties are to file a joint report
detailing (1) all material facts in this case and (2), as
to each and every material fact, whether it is or is not
genuinely in dispute.

The court will then provide notice

and an opportunity for the parties to respond pursuant to
Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

56(f)(3)

before

determining

whether

summary judgment in favor of any party may be entered.
DONE, this the 27th day of December, 2011.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE