Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's Subscribing to Policy No. TCN034699 et al v. Bell et al

Filing 33

ORDER for Response. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on November 24, 2014. (AA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S SUBSCRIBING
TO POLICY NO. TCN034699 and
TAPCO UNDERWRITERS, INC.
VS.

PLAINTIFFS

CIVIL ACTION NO: 5:13-cv-113-DCB-MTP

EMMA BELL and JOHN BELL

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This

cause

is

before

the

Court

on

Plaintiffs’,

Certain

Underwriters at Lloyd’s Subscribing to Policy No. TCN034699 and
TAPCO Underwriters, Inc. (“the Underwriters”), Motion for Summary
Judgment [docket entry no. 25]. Three days after the Defendants,
Emma and John Bell, filed their Memorandum in Opposition, a state
court decision was rendered in favor of the Underwriters. The
Underwriters argue in their Reply that this decision should be
given preclusive effect by the Court. The Bells have not responded
to this argument. The Court finds it necessary to hear from the
Bells as to what preclusive effect, if any, should be given to the
state court decision cited in the Reply [docket entry no. 30] and
the

Notice

of

Supplemental

Authority

[docket

entry

no.

32].

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants, Emma and John Bell,
shall file a response to the new arguments raised by plaintiffs in

1

the Reply. The response shall be filed within two weeks of the date
of entry of this order.

SO ORDERED this the 24th day of November 2014.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2