Marlow Yachts Limited, Inc. et al v. Federal Insurance Company

Filing 41

ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Motion for Summary Judgment 35 is granted. Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment 27 is denied as moot. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 3/8/2013. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

MARLOW YACHTS LIMITED, INC.,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-340-T-30TBM

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 35) and Defendant’s Response in
opposition (Dkt. 39). The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise
advised in the premises, concludes that the motion should be granted.
On January 29, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for summary judgment (Dkt.
27). On February 13, 2013, Defendant filed its response to same (Dkt. 32). Plaintiffs seek
leave to amend their motion for summary judgment because, since the motion’s filing on
January 29, 2013, additional relevant depositions were taken, which has led to new
information relevant to Plaintiffs’ entitlement to summary judgment.
The dispositive motion deadline in this case is set on June 7, 2013. Thus, the Court
sees no reason to deny Plaintiffs’ request to file an amended summary judgment motion.
Indeed, Plaintiffs have until June 7, 2013 to file their dispositive motion. If discovery is still

ongoing, it would behoove Plaintiffs to wait until the completion of same to file their
amended motion.
The Court is mindful of Defendant’s argument that Plaintiffs are seeking a “second
bite at the same apple”, however this is not the typical scenario of seeking summary
judgment in a piecemeal fashion because the Court has not ruled on Plaintiffs’ pending
summary judgment motion. In other words, Plaintiffs are seeking amendment prior to the
Court’s disposition on any summary judgment issues and Plaintiffs’ request is timely in light
of the June 2013 dispositive motion deadline. Notably, Defendant references its intention
to file a summary judgment motion; the Court is of the opinion that it would be a better use
of judicial resources to consider the parties’ motions at the same time.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. 35) is granted.

2.

Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 27) is denied as
moot.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on March 8, 2013.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Even\2012\12-cv-340.mt35.frm

Page 2 of 2