Hardy et al v. Bartmess

Filing 207

ORDER finding as moot 203 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Amended Final Scheduling Order is modified as set forth in this Order. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 10/25/11. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES HARDY, JR.; HARDY RESOURCES
LLC; JOHN HARDY; EVERGREEN PROCESSING, LLC,
formerly B&H RESOURCES, LLC; MARY HARDY;
HARDY ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; ELITE
COIL TUBING SOLUTIONS LLC; and
NORTHSTAR FARMS LLC

v.

PLAINTIFFS

No.1:09-cv-41-DPM

HELEN BARTMESS, Executrix of the
Estate of George Bartmess

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Counsel and the Court had a productive status conference on 20
October 2011.
1. Claims. The Court much appreciates the Hardy Interests' winnowing
their active complaint to four core claims: fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
tortious interference with contracts with third parties, and breach of the LLC
Membership Purchase Agreement.

All other substantive claims were

withdrawn as duplicative and are therefore dismissed without prejudice. It
was clear that, as the Court requested in the recent Order, counsel for the
Hardy Interests put time and thought before the hearing into whether some

claims were duplicative. Narrowing the issues is a big step toward getting the

parties' dispute adjudicated promptly, fairly, and efficiently.
On damages, the Court notes the Hardy Interests' intention to pursue all
the various elements of damage mentioned in the active complaint. The Hardy
Interests are considering whether declaratory relief is needed.
Bartmess moved for partial summary judgment on injunctive relief right
before the status conference. Document No. 203. The Hardy Interests agreed
at the conference that George Bartmess is beyond the reach of this Court's
orders. And having considered the matter further, the Hardy Interests have
promptly responded to the motion. Document No. 206. The Court agrees with
the parties' analysis: the Court has denied the Hardy Interests' motion to add
claims against Bruce Bartmess and Helen Bartmess individually; and the
Hardy Interests' claims for injunctive relief were mooted by George Bartmess's
death. The Hardy Interests' request to withdraw those claims is granted. They
are dismissed without prejudice. Bartmess's motion for partial summary
judgment is denied as moot.
2. Schedule. The Amended Final Scheduling Order is modified and
supplemented:

-2­

Dispositive Motions Due

11 November 2011

Responses Due

2 December 2011

Replies Due

9 December 2011

The Court will hear oral argument on dispositive motions on 15 December
2011 at 1:30 p.m. in Little Rock.
3. Motion Procedure. The parties will use a master set of agreed exhibits
for the motions. Bartmess will propose a list by 31 October 2011; the Hardy
Interests will promptly advise of any additions or corrections. A complete
condensed copy of any cited deposition will be used as the exhibit. The Court
would appreciate Bartmess sending a courtesy paper copy of the joint exhibits
to chambers. The parties will exchange usable electronic copies of their Local
Rule 56.1 Statements and follow interrogatory form.
4. Length of Trial.

The Court was able to reserve the Batesville

Courtroom for a second week of trial. The Court appreciates the Hardy
Interests' willingness to reflect on their planned testimony and the trial days
needed. They will file a status report by 7 December 2011. While we have the
Batesville courtroom, going into a second week will require the Court to
postpone trials in other cases. But if continuing the other cases is necessary for

-3­

the Hardy Interests and Bartmess to be fully heard on their dispute, then the
Court will postpone the other trials without hesitation.

* * *
Motion, Document No. 203, denied as moot. Amended Final
Scheduling Order, Document No. 202, amended further.
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
25 October 2011

-4­