Kingdom Insurance Group LLC et al v. United Healthcare Insurance Company et al

Filing 12

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion to Establish Briefing Schedule. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 11/10/2009. (nbp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION KINGDOM INSURANCE GROUP, LLC, KINGDOM BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, KINGDOMCARE, LLC, and KINGDOM BENEFITS ASSOCIATION, LLC, : : : : : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : UNITED HEALTHCARE : INSURANCE COMPANY et al. : : Defendants. : ______________________________: ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Consent Motion to Establish Briefing Schedule on Pending Motions and Responsive Pleadings (Doc. 9) (the "Consent Motion") filed jointly by the parties in this case. For the following reasons, the Consent Motion is granted in part and denied in part. This is a case for money damages originally filed against the Defendants in the Superior Court of Thomas County, Georgia. Defendants filed a Notice of Removal (Doc. 1), removing this case to this Court. Since arriving in this Court, several documents have been filed in this case, including the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Doc. 6), the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or in the Alternative, to Transfer (Doc. 7) filed by Defendants Protectors Insurance & Financial Services, LLC and Messrs. David Harris, Jerry Boles, and Howard Jefferson and the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) filed Case No. 7:09-CV-113 (HL) by Defendants United Healthcare Insurance Company, Richard Frommeyer, and James Bletzer. Responses to these Motions are due soon. The parties rightly point out to this Court that the first potentially dispositive issue is whether this case should be remanded to the Superior Court of Thomas County. In the interests of judicial economy the parties ask for the following relief: (1) a stay of the briefing requirements for the Motions to Dismiss pending an order from this Court on the Motion to Remand; (2) the establishment of a briefing schedule in the event this Court does not remand the case; (3) the establishment of a briefing schedule in the event this Court does remand the case; and (4) a hearing on the Motion to Remand. The Court rules as follows: First, this Court grants the parties' request for a stay of the responses to the Motions to Dismiss pending an order from this Court on the Motion to Remand. Second, in the event this Court denies the Motion to Remand, the responses to the Motions to Dismiss will be due thirty days from the entry of the order denying the Motion to Remand. Third, in the event this Court grants the Motion to Remand, this Court is without jurisdiction to provide a binding briefing schedule for the state court proceedings. Therefore, this Court denies the request to create a briefing schedule for the state court proceedings. 2 Fourth, the request for a hearing on the Motion to Remand is denied. SO ORDERED, this the 10th day of November, 2009. s/ Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, JUDGE lmc 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?