Phoenix Insurance Company, The et al v. Cantex, Inc. et al

Filing 213

ORDER granting 212 Cantex Inc's Rule 56(d) Motion to Deny Landmark's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, to Continue the Deadline for Cantex to Respond to Landmark's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying without prejudice 206 Landmark American Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/26/2015.(alowe)

N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00507-REB-BNB
THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY,
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, and
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Plaintiffs.
v.
CANTEX, INC.,
CONCRETE MANAGEMENT CORP.,
LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, and
RBR CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING CANTEX INC.’S RULE 56(d) MOTION
Blackburn, J.
The matter before the court is defendant Cantex Inc.’s Rule 56(d) Motion To
Deny Landmark’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, To
Continue the Deadline for Cantex To Respond to Landmark’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [#212],1 filed January 23, 2015. Exercising the prerogative of the court to
rule on the motion without awaiting the benefit of a response,
see D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d), the court grants the motion and denies Landmark’s
corresponding summary judgment motion without prejudice.

1

“[#212]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

The discovery deadline in this case is August 17, 2015, and dispositive motions
are not due until September 17, 2015. Two motions to dismiss are still pending before
the magistrate judge for recommendation. As the parties well know, the landscape of
this case has shifted significantly since the case was filed originally, and given the
current procedural posture, seems likely to change yet further as the case develops.
Moreover, Landmark’s motion addresses only one aspect of the claims made against it,2
such that resolution of its motion appears unlikely to narrow appreciably the issues that
remain to be resolved in the case.
Given all these considerations, the court believes that it would be more efficient,
efficacious, and fair to address the issues raised by and inherent to the summary
judgment motion with the benefit of a more fully developed record and in the likely
context of dealing with some or all of the other issues implicated by this case.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That Cantex Inc.’s Rule 56(d) Motion To Deny Landmark’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, To Continue the Deadline for Cantex To
Respond to Landmark’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#212], filed January 23,
2015, is GRANTED; and
2. That Landmark American Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [#206], filed January 12, 2015, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling
at a later date.

2

The motion thus should have been designated in its title as one for partial summary judgment.

2

Dated January 26, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3