RD Properties of Metairie, LLC v. Scottsdale Insurance Company
ORDER denying 19 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RD PROPERTIES OF METAIRIE, LLC
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE CO.
SECTION: "A" (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 19)
filed by defendant Scottsdale Insurance Co. Plaintiff RD Properties of Metairie, LLC opposes
the motion. The motion, scheduled for submission on May 7, 2014, is before the Court on
the briefs without oral argument.
Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit to recover for property damage sustained during
Hurricane Isaac to several apartment units located in Metairie, Louisiana. Plaintiff seeks
additional policy proceeds, statutory penalties, and attorney’s fees. (Rec. Doc. 1-3, Petition).
Scottsdale removed the suit on August 21, 2013, and moved to dismiss the case just one
week later. The Court denied that motion on September 25, 2013. (Rec. Doc. 6). This matter
is scheduled to be tried to a jury on June 30, 2013. (Rec. Doc. 13).
Scottsdale now moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims for penalties and
attorney's fees arguing that it did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner with respect
to the way it had handled Plaintiff's claim.
Summary judgment is appropriate only if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," when viewed in
the light most favorable to the non-movant, "show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact." TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James, 276 F.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)). A dispute about a material
fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
non-moving party. Id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). The court must draw all justifiable
inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). Once the
moving party has initially shown "that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's cause," Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986), the non-movant
must come forward with "specific facts" showing a genuine factual issue for trial. Id. (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).
Conclusional allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences, unsubstantiated
assertions, and legalistic argumentation do not adequately substitute for specific facts
showing a genuine issue for trial. Id. (citing SEC v. Recile, 10 F.3d 1093, 1097 (5th Cir.
The Court is persuaded that issues of fact preclude summary judgment. Further, it
has been the Court’s approach with all of its hurricane cases that the question of penalties
and attorney's fees be decided by the trier of fact at trial.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc.
19) filed by defendant Scottsdale Insurance Co. is DENIED.
May 13, 2014
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?