Wesco Insurance Company v. Archer Landscape Group, LLC et al
Filing
53
ORDER denying 40 Motion to Stay; finding as moot 42 Motion to Expedite; finding as moot 43 Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 7/2/18. (jla)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY
PLAINTIFF
V.
NO. 1:16-CV-165-DMB-DAS
ARCHER LANDSCAPE
GROUP, LLC; GERALD SELLERS;
RICHARD STRACHAN; and
TIMOTHY BRASFIELD
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court are Timothy Brasfield’s “Motion to Stay,” Doc. #40, and his “Motion to
Expedite Hearing on Motion to Stay [40],” Doc. #42; and Wesco Insurance Company’s “Motion
to Strike,” Doc. #43.
I
Relevant Procedural History
On September 9, 2016, Wesco Insurance Company filed a complaint for declaratory
judgment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Doc. #1. On
December 12, 2016, Timothy Brasfield filed a “Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction and/or to Stay Proceedings.” Doc. #14. On August 25, 2017, the Court denied
Brasfield’s motion to dismiss, Doc. #17, and Brasfield moved for reconsideration on September
1, 2017, Doc. #20.1
On March 7, 2018, Brasfield filed a “Motion to Stay.” Doc. #40. Two weeks later, on
March 21, 2018, Brasfield filed a “Motion to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Stay [40].” Doc.
#42. Also on March 21, 2018, Wesco filed a “Motion to Strike” Brasfield’s motion to stay and
1
This case was initially assigned to United States District Judge Sharion Aycock. After Brasfield moved for
reconsideration, Judge Aycock recused herself and the case was reassigned to the undersigned district judge.
motion to expedite, and responded in opposition to the motion to stay. Doc. #43; Doc. #44. Wesco
responded in opposition to Brasfield’s motion to expedite on April 4, 2018. Doc. #45. Brasfield
did not reply to either of Wesco’s responses, or respond to Wesco’s motion to strike. On June 11,
2018, this Court denied Brasfield’s motion for reconsideration. Doc. #46.
II
Analysis
At the outset, the Court observes that Brasfield did not file a memorandum brief in support
of his motion to stay as required by this Court’s local rules, and has otherwise failed to cite any
authority to warrant the stay he seeks. For these reasons, Brasfield motion to stay is properly
denied. See L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(4) (requiring filing of memorandum brief “[a]t the time the motion
is served,” and providing that “[f]ailure to timely submit the required motion documents may result
in the denial of the motion”); C.W.P. v. Brown, 56 F.Supp.3d 834, 839 (N.D. Miss. 2014) (denying
motion unaccompanied by memorandum brief citing legal authority for relief sought).
Even if Brasfield’s motion to stay complied with the Court’s local rules, it is without merit.
In his motion to stay, Brasfield contends that a “critical issue of material fact[,] … whether or not
[he] was functioning as an employee of Archer Landscape … at the time of the subject accident[,]
… is contested,” and that this factual determination should be decided by a jury in his earlier-filed
state court action in the Circuit Court of Alcorn County. Doc. #40 at 1.
In response, after noting that Brasfield does not provide any authority for his motion to
stay, Wesco argues that Brasfield is essentially “again asking this Court to abstain from exercising
its jurisdiction over this matter.” Doc. #44 at 7. Wesco contends that the critical issue is
not whether Brasfield “was functioning as an employee of Archer” at the time of
the accident. Rather, the critical issue is whether … Brasfield was an employee of
Archer at the time of the accident, so that his claim arises out of “Employment by
[Archer]; or Performing duties related to the conduct of [Archer’s] business.”
2
Id. at 8. Essentially, Wesco contends Brasfield’s motion to stay should be denied for the same
reasons the Court denied his motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration, as he seeks the
same relief—that this Court abstain from hearing this case until the conclusion of his state court
action. This Court agrees with Wesco.
By requesting in his motion to stay “an Order to be entered staying all further proceedings
until the state court matter is fully adjudicated before a jury,”2 Brasfield essentially requests the
same relief sought in his previous motions3—relief that has previously been twice denied.4
Accordingly, for the same reasons stated in the orders denying his motion to dismiss and his motion
for reconsideration, Brasfield’s motion to stay [40] is DENIED. Brasfield’s motion to expedite
[42] and Wesco’s motion to strike [43] are DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of July, 2018.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Doc. #40 at 3.
3
See Doc. #14 (requesting dismissal or stay until state court jury makes factual determination as to whether he was
functioning as employee at time of accident); Doc. #20 (seeking reconsideration on ground that material issue of
fact—whether he was functioning as employee at time of accident—should be determined by state court jury).
4
See Doc. #18 (denying Brasfield’s motion to dismiss or stay because coverage issues relevant to instant declaratory
action not before state court and because Wesco not party to Brasfield’s state court action); Doc. #46 (denying
Brasfield’s motion for reconsideration for same reasons).
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?