Boyd v. Airgas Mid South Inc

Filing 44

ORDER denying without 27 Motion for Summary Judgment at this time. The Motion may be re-filed following the completion of discovery. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 10/6/2014. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION

MAUDE BOYD
VS.

PLAINTIFF
NO. 3:13CV00247 JM

AIRGAS-MID SOUTH, INC.

DEFENDANT/THIRD-PARTY
PLAINTIFF

VS.
GEORGE HAMMAN; CIVILOGIC, INC.;
HARDY LITTLE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.;
AND BAILEY CONTRACTORS, INC.

THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS

GEORGE HAMMAN AND CIVILOGIC, INC.

COUNTERCLAIMANTS

VS.
AIRGAS-MID SOUTH, INC.

COUNTER-DEFENDANT

ORDER
Pending is the motion for summary judgment filed by Separate Third-Party Defendant,
Hardy Little and Associates, Inc. (“Little”), (docket # 27), seeking a dismissal of all claims
asserted against it by Airgas-Mid South, Inc. (“Airgas”) in its Third-Party Complaint. Airgas
has filed a response and Little has filed a reply. In support of its Response, Airgas includes a
Rule 56(d) affidavit stating that it is unable to adequately respond to factual statements contained
in the motion and needs additional time to engage in discovery. Additionally, since the filing of
the pending motion for summary judgment, Airgis has filed an Amended-Third Party Complaint
asserting additional claims of negligence against Little. The Court finds the motion for summary
judgment premature, additional discovery may provide Airgas sufficient facts to support its

opposition to the pending motion. The motion will be denied at this time, without prejudice to
re-file following the completion of discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2014.

______________________________________
James M. Moody Jr.
United States District Judge

2