Allstate Indemnity Company v. White et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying without prejudice 21 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 26 Motion to Hold Summary Judgment Motion in Abeyance; granting 35 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 4, 2016. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY

VS.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 15-CV-4032

SANFORD WHITE, et al

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The following motions are before the Court: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 21); Defendant-Claimants’1 Motion to Hold Summary Judgment Motion in Abeyance (ECF No.
26); and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 35). The Court finds these matters ripe for consideration.
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) seeks a declaration from the Court regarding Plaintiff’s
contractual obligations to defend and indemnify Defendant-Insured Sanford White in a case pending
before this Court, Vanessa Griffin, et at. v. Tony Alamo, et al., Case No.4:14-cv-4065. Plaintiff filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment on October 13, 2015. (ECF No. 26). Defendant-Claimants filed
a motion (ECF No. 26) requesting that the Motion for Summary Judgment be held in abeyance until
March 1, 2016 so that relevant discovery could be conducted in the underlying case. To date,
Defendant-Claimants have not responded to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

1

Defendant-Claimants are Vanessa Griffin, Marcus Griffin, Brooklyn Howard, Alsandra
Reid, Alfonso Reid, Angela Ondrisek, Nicholas Broderick, Matthew Broderick, Marissa
Broderick, Shaina Broderick, Nathan Griffin, Tonia Griffin, Alexis Broderick and Sheldon
Griffis

On December 30, 2015, Defendant-Claimants filed a Third Amended Complaint in Vanessa
Griffin, et at. v. Tony Alamo, et al. Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting leave to submit
supplemental briefing to address new allegations contained in the Third Amended Complaint.
Upon consideration, the Court finds that it would be more appropriate for Plaintiff to update
their Motion for Summary Judgment along with their brief. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant-Claimants’ Motion
to Hold Summary Judgment Motion in Abeyance (ECF No. 26) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
35) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s updated motion and brief are due on or before March 11, 2016.
Defendants responses are due on or before April 1, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 4th day of March, 2016.

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