Catalina London Limited v. Jeanne Estates Apartments, Inc. et al

Filing 101

ORDER denying 69 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 86 Motion to Extend. See Order for specifics. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on September 16, 2014. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
CATALINA LONDON LIMITED
F/K/A ALEA LONDON LIMITED
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 11-CV-4091

JEANNE ESTATES APARTMENTS, INC.,
et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 69) and certain
Defendants’ Motion to Extend Court’s Ruling on the Notice Provision. (ECF No. 86). This is an
action seeking a declaratory judgment as to the rights and obligations of the parties pursuant to an
insurance policy issued by Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks a declaration from the Court regarding its
contractual obligations to defend and indemnify Defendant-Insureds in cases before this Court and
Arkansas state courts: Kolbek, et al. v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, et al.,
No. 4:10-cv-04124; Ondirsek, et al. v. Hoffman, No. 4:08-cv-04113; Coie v. Alamo, et al., No. CV2009-1854(V), Circuit Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas; Kolbek, et al. v. Twenty First Century
Holiness Tabernacle Church Inc., et al., No. 46CV-14-8-2, Circuit Court of Miller County,
Arkansas.
Since the filing of the parties’ motions and the filing of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 100), the composition of this case has changed dramatically. Many of the DefendantInsureds who were parties in Kolbek, et al. v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church,
et al., No. 4:10-cv-04124 have had the claims against them settled and/or dismissed. The final
dismissal of all claims in Kolbek, et al. v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, et al.,

No. 4:10-cv-04124 was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 11, 2014.
Thus, for some of the Defendant-Insureds in this action, there may be no current claims against them
in an underlying suit that would implicate Plaintiff’s insurance policies.
In light of these developments, the Court finds that updated motions are necessary.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 69) is hereby DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Individual Defendants’ Motion to Extend Court’s Ruling on the Notice
Provision (ECF No. 86) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Any motions for summary judgment must be filed on or before October 14, 2014. The Court
asks that the parties explicitly address the current disposition of each underlying causes of action
referenced in the Third Amended Complaint as well as any newly filed actions that may implicate
Plaintiff’s insurance policies. The Court also requests that the parties fully discuss, with supporting
law, whether a justiciable controversy still exists as to the insurance coverage of Defendant-Insureds
whose claims in the underlying suit(s) have been settled and/or dismissed.1
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of September, 2014.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

1

It is worth noting that similar declaratory judgment actions against some of the same DefendantInsureds have been voluntarily dismissed in light of the settlement agreement reached in Kolbek, et
al. v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, et al., No. 4:10-cv-04124. See Cameron
Mutual Insurance Company v. Steve Johnson, et al, No. 4:11-cv-4051; National Libaility & Fire
Insurance Company v. Desiree Kolbek, et al, No. 4:12-cv-4126.