Riverbend Environmental Services, LLC v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company

Filing 103

ORDER granting 95 Motion to Supplement Plaintiff's Memorandum 67 in Support of its Motion 66 to Refer the Issues of the Policy Period and Cancellation to the Bankruptcy Court. Signed by District Judge David C. Bramlette, III on October 25, 2023. (jm)

Case 5:22-cv-00031-DCB-BWR Document 103 Filed 10/25/23 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION

RIVERBEND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC
vs.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-CV-31-DCB-BWR

CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

DEFENDANT

ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Riverbend Environmental
Services, LLC (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion to Supplement its Memorandum
[67] in Support of its Motion [66] to Refer the Issues of the
Policy Period and Cancellation to the Bankruptcy Court.
95].

[ECF No.

Defendant Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company

(“Defendant”) opposes the motion.

[ECF No. 102].

After reviewing

the parties’ submissions and applicable law, the Court, in its
discretion, has decided to grant the Motion to Supplement.
According to Plaintiff, the purpose of its Motion to
Supplement is to bring a recent opinion that was issued by Judge
Samson of the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of
Mississippi, In re Knight, No. 15-50011-KMS, 2023 WL 5024024
(Bankr. S.D. Miss. Aug. 7, 2023), to this Court’s attention in
connection with the Court’s consideration of Plaintiff’s pending
1

Case 5:22-cv-00031-DCB-BWR Document 103 Filed 10/25/23 Page 2 of 3

Motion [66] to Refer.

[ECF No. 95] at 2.

In opposition,

Defendant states that it has no objection to the Court considering
relevant authority, but that In re Knight is irrelevant to the
facts of this case.

[ECF No. 102] at 1.

“Courts have consistently allowed parties to refile or amend
motions and supporting documents as a valid exercise of their
discretion in case management.”

United States v. Filson, 347 F.

App'x 987, 991 & n.3 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Ortiz v. Minnesota
Life Ins. Co., No. 420CV00923SDJCAN, 2023 WL 3993047, at *3 (E.D.
Tex. June 9, 2023)(court has discretion to grant a motion for
leave to supplement an already-filed motion); accord Cadena
Cazares v. Ortho El Paso, P.A., No. EP-20-CV-5-PRM, 2020 WL
7674326, at *2 (W.D. Tex. July 20, 2020) (citing 5 CHARLES ALAN
WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1194
(3d ed. 2020)) (“The decision to grant a motion for leave to
supplement a motion is within the Court's discretion.”).

“The use

of judicial discretion seems especially appropriate if the adverse
parties will not be prejudiced by the amendment to the motion … .”
§ 1194 Amendment of Motions, 5 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1194 (4th
ed.).
Because the Court has given equal consideration to both
parties’ briefs and the opposing interpretations of In re Knight
contained therein, the Court finds that no prejudice will result
2

Case 5:22-cv-00031-DCB-BWR Document 103 Filed 10/25/23 Page 3 of 3

to Defendant if the Motion to Supplement is granted.
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement its Memorandum in Support of
its Motion to Refer the Issues of the Policy Period and
Cancellation to the Bankruptcy Court [ECF No. 95] is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 25th day of October 2023.

/s/
David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3