North American Company for Life and Health Insurance v. Kinard et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying as moot: Plaintiff's 11 Motion to Stay; Defendant's 37 Motion for Reconsideration; and, Defendant's 39 Motion to Stay, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 5/24/11.(lsw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01960-PAB-KMT
LU CELIA KINARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CYNTHIA ROTHROCK KINARD, individually and
as Administratix of the Estate of Walter A. Kinard,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for a stay of state court
proceedings [Docket No. 11], defendant’s motion for reconsideration [Docket No. 37] of
the Court’s December 14, 2010 Minute Order [Docket No. 33] striking defendant’s
response to plaintiff’s motion for a stay, and defendant’s motion to stay this matter and
defer to the state court proceedings [Docket No. 39]. This case arises out of a dispute
over life insurance proceeds.
Central to the parties’ dispute are the terms of a Separation Agreement entered
into between plaintiff and Walter A. Kinard, which was incorporated into a divorce
decree entered by the District Court for Jefferson County, Colorado on October 24,
2002 in Case Number 01DR1719. See Docket No. 35-1 at 2. On July 22, 2010,
defendant filed a motion in the Jefferson County case seeking to enforce the
Separation Agreement, requesting relief that would potentially implicate the life
insurance proceeds at issue here. See Docket No. 49-2. The aforementioned motions

in this case all concern this attempt by defendant to enforce the Separation Agreement
in Case Number 01DR1719. Plaintiff avers, however, that the state court, having
concluded that defendant had no standing, denied defendant’s attempt to enforce the
Separation Agreement. See Docket No. 49 at 3-4, ¶ 10; Docket No. 49-1. The parties
identify no other ongoing state court proceedings for this Court to stay. Thus, the
motion to stay is moot. Furthermore, defendant requests that this Court defer to the
resolution by the state court in Case Number 01DR1719 of her motion to enforce the
Separation Agreement. See Docket No. 39 at 3-4, ¶ 6; 5, ¶¶ 9, 11. As noted, however,
the state court did not resolve the merits of the parties’ dispute over the insurance
proceedings. See Docket No. 49-1. Thus, there is no ruling to which to defer.
Consequently, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a stay of state court proceedings [Docket
No. 11], defendant’s motion for reconsideration [Docket No. 37], and defendant’s
motion to stay this matter and defer to the state court proceedings [Docket No. 39] are
DENIED as moot.

DATED May 24, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

2