Canal Indemnity Company v. Regency Club Condominium Owners Association, Inc. et al
ORDER directing the Clerk of Court to close this file, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 1/14/13. (scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CANAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,
REGENCY CLUB OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
(WO – Do Not Publish)
On January 7, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. #123)
in the above-styled cause of action granting Canal Indemnity Company’s (“Canal”) Second
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #78) and denying Park Lane Construction, Inc.’s
(“Park Lane”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #82). As the Court noted in its
Memorandum Opinion (see Doc. #123, at 9 n.9), in moving for summary judgment, Park
Lane did not rely on two theories of relief—a third-party beneficiary theory and a
reformation theory—previously raised in its Counterclaim against Canal (Doc. #43, at ¶¶ 2,
8). Furthermore, Park Lane did not adequately address these two theories of relief in any
meaningful sense in its opposition to Canal’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc.
#93.) Thus, the Court deems Park Lane to have abandoned its Counterclaim. The Court is
confident that the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in this case has adequately
resolved all claims and issues in this case, but out of an abundance of caution, has entered
this Order to further clarify that all pending claims in this case have been resolved. The
Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to close this file.
DONE this the 14th day of January, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?