Rodger v. Crawford et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 4 Middlesex Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Reconsideration is denied. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 7/8/2014. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DOYLE CRAWFORD, et al.
Pending are Defendant Middlesex Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss, or, in the
Alternative, Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 4) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 20).
In her Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that the resolution of Middlesex’s
subrogation lien by the Wisconsin court “will not resolve all the issues or enable Rodger to get
her settlement proceeds.”1 She also continues to argue that this Court is required to sign off on
the settlement. I disagree.
Though Plaintiff in earlier briefing called this a “tentative settlement,” it is clear that she
has settled the case with the third-party tortfeasors; she just hasn’t been paid yet.2 Notably,
Plaintiff says, “If the case had been settled after suit was filed, the settlement would have been
approved and distributed in Arkansas by the court in which the suit was filed and before whom
all necessary parties would have been joined.”3 This statement supports my position that (1) the
case has settled with the third-party tortfeasors, which leaves disbursement as the only issue
between them to be resolved; and (2) nothing in the agreement or the law requires a court to
approve a settlement agreement for a case that was never filed.
Doc. No. 21.
See Id. (“Absent a settlement, there is no doubt that this case would have been litigated
in Arkansas, where the accident occurred and the tortfeasors reside.”).
I am not convinced that dismissing this case would disrupt Plaintiff’s settlement of the
tort case. Plaintiff’s argument about the Wisconsin court having to approve their already
resolved dispute is without merit -- the only issue to resolve is whether Arkansas or Wisconsin
law applies to the lien. Again, the third-party tortfeasors have signed the agreement, and are
waiting on Plaintiff and Middlesex to tell them how to disburse the funds. If the third-party
tortfeasors do not honor the settlement agreement, the appropriate remedy would be to seek
enforcement of the agreement -- i.e., contract -- in federal court.
Accordingly, Defendant Middlesex Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss, or, in the
Alternative, Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.
Specifically, it is granted only to the extent that it seeks dismissal of the case without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 20) is
DENIED. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of July, 2014.
/s/ Billy Roy Wilson
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?