Moore v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 61

ORDER GRANTING 58 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration which also GRANTS, in full, 53 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Moore's Assault & Battery and Related Retaliation Claims. See written order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 06/13/2017. (RT, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 13 June, 2017 04:25:33 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
KEIRAND R. MOORE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:15-CV-01058-JEH

v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
Order

Now before the Court is the Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company’s (“State Farm”), Motion for Reconsideration (D. 58) 1 and the pro
se Plaintiff, Kierand Moore’s, response thereto (D. 59). For the reasons stated, infra,
the Court GRANTS State Farm’s motion. 2
In ruling on State Farm’s most recent Motion for Summary Judgment (D. 57),
the Court found, inter alia, that State Farm was not entitled to partial summary
judgment on Moore’s retaliation claim. Id. at pg. 5-6. In its Motion to Reconsider,
State Farm highlights that the Court’s ruling did not account for a change in the
language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which was redrafted in 2010
specifically to allow courts to make partial rulings on claims for summary judgment.
(D. 58 at pg. 3). As such, State Farm argues it is entitled to summary judgment on
Moore’s retaliation claim stemming from his allegations of assault and battery. Id. In
response, Moore acknowledges the change in the rule but suggests that it should not
be applied under all circumstances. (D. 59 at pg. 1).

1
2

Citations to the Docket in this case are abbreviated as “D. __.”

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge. (D. 38-39).

1

The Seventh Circuit recently held that “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
explicitly allow for ‘[p]artial summary judgment’ and require parties to ‘identif[y]
each claim or defense—or the part of each claim or defense—on which summary
judgment is sought.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (emphasis added).” BBL, Inc. v. City of
Angola, 809 F.3d 317, 325 (7th Cir. 2015). The Circuit went on to state that “[a]t the
summary-judgment stage, the court can properly narrow the individual factual issues
for trial by identifying the material disputes of fact that continue to exist.” Id.
(emphasis in original); see also Servicios Especiales Al Comercio Exterior v. Johnson
Controls, Inc., 791 F. Supp. 2d 626, 632 (E.D. Wis. 2011) (noting that “the newly revised
rules permit a party to move for partial summary judgment, a term the advisory
committee itself understood to mean an issue narrowing adjudication.”).
Given the above, State Farm is indeed entitled to partial summary judgment on
Moore’s assault and battery-related retaliation claim.

In the Court’s view, it is

axiomatic that evidence related to Moore’s allegation of assault and battery, which
failed to survive summary judgment, would be inadmissible regardless of when a
party seeks to admit it. Therefore, the Court GRANTS State Farm’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on Moore’s retaliation claim, solely as it relates to his claims of
assault and battery.
For the reasons stated, supra, State Farm’s Motion for Reconsideration (D. 58)
is GRANTED and, as a result the Court also GRANTS, in total, State Farm’s Motion
for Summary Judgment on Moore’s Assault & Battery and Related Retaliation Claims
(D. 53).
It is so ordered.
Entered on June 13, 2017
s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2