Ameris Bank v. Lexington Insurance Company

Filing 91

ORDER dismissing 85 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant is DIRECTED to file within forty-five days from the date of this order a new, freestanding motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 9/28/16. (jlm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

AMERIS BANK, as assignee of
the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, receiver of
Darby Bank and Trust Co.,
Plaintiff,
V

CASE NO. CV413-241 :2

.

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant and ThirdParty Plaintiff,
7.

V.

COASTAL BIOFUELS, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant.
ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Lexington Insurance
Company's ("Lexington") Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
(Doc. 85.) The Court previously granted Plaintiff Ameris
Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment on its claim for breach
of contract. (Doc. 82.) In addition, the Court permitted
Defendants Lexington and Coastal Biofuels, Inc.
("Coastal") the opportunity to submit additional briefing
regarding the issue of Defendant Lexington's entitlement to
indemnity from Defendant Coastal. (Doc. 83.)

In response, Defendant Lexington filed a Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment. However, rather than actually take
the time to brief the Court on the issue of
indemnification, Defendant Lexington seeks to have its
response to an earlier motion serve as its brief in support
of the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 85, ¶ 6.)
This Court does not accept piecemeal briefs that
incorporate by reference arguments contained in other
filings, leaving this Court with the dubious task of having
to sift through filings and assemble a party's argument.
Therefore, Defendant Lexington's Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 85) is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

and it is DIRECTED to file within forty-five days from the
date of this order a new, freestanding motion for summary
judgment. Both parties should be aware that the Court will
not accept any filing that incorporates by reference any
portion of an earlier filing. Defendant Lexington's motion,
as well as Defendant Biofuel's response, should be standalone filings that independently contain all the arguments
the parties wish the Court to consider.
SO ORDERED this 28day of September 2016.

WILLIAM T. MOORE, J
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2